Belogolovkin v. 1100-1114 Kings Highway LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Dec 12, 2006

Versions:35 A.D.3d 514

825 N.Y.S.2d 543

Melbourne v Melbourne (2004) is the preceding case for the first paragraph, though it‘s not fully in the OCR, it‘s mentioned in later citations. The first paragraph is a continuation of a previous case‘s opinion, so I will skip it as per the “Multi-Opinion Documents” instruction. Case 1 (ISAAC BELOGOLOVKIN): Name: Isaak Belogolovkin v. 1100-1114 Kings Highway LLC Docket: 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC Citation: 825 NYS2d 543 Court: Appellate Division, Second Department (implied from judges) Date: Jun 30, 2005 (from description of order) Wait, the prompt says “For multi-opinion documents, convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Case 1 starts on page 514: “ISAAK BELOGOLOVKIN, Appellant, v 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC et al., Defendants, and DUANE READE, INC., Respondent. [825 NYS2d 543]” The body starts on 514: “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals...” Case 1 continues on 515 and ends with “Goldstein, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.” Case 2 starts on page 515: “CARLOS J. COLON, Plaintiff, v MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, Defendants... [825 NYS2d 754]” However, the text for Case 2 is incomplete as the PDF ends right after the caption. Therefore, Case 1 (Belogolovkin) is the complete opinion. Case 2 (Colon) is partial. Metadata for Case 1: shortName: Belogolovkin v. 1100-1114 Kings Highway LLC docket: unknown (not explicitly in OCR/images as a docket number, usually NY AD cases have index numbers or docket numbers like 2005-08104, but here it‘s not shown) court: N.Y. App. Div. (Second Department based on judges Florio, Mastro, etc. on p 514, though Case 1 judges are Goldstein, Rivera, etc. on p 515). Actually, on page 514, the judges are Florio, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino. They concur on the *previous* case (Matter of Dobbins v Vartabedian). For the Belogolovkin case (starts on 514, ends on 515), the judges are Goldstein, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Skelos. Date: The order appealed from is June 30, 2005. The opinion date isn‘t explicitly on the header, but NY AD reporters usually list the month/year. Since I don‘t see the specific opinion date, I will look at the [825 NYS2d 543] citation. Looking at the citation: 825 N.Y.S.2d 543. This is Belogolovkin v. 1100-1114 Kings Highway LLC, 34 A.D.3d 514 (2d Dept 2006). The date is 2006. Let‘s refine. Case: ISAAK BELOGOLOVKIN, Appellant, v 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC et al., Defendants, and DUANE READE, INC., Respondent. Citation: 825 NYS2d 543 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: 2006 (inferred from reporter, though not explicitly in OCR) Wait, the prompt says “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. If the date isn‘t there, don‘t hallucinate it. But I should look for it. The only date mentioned is the order being appealed from: “June 30, 2005“. Usually, the opinion is later. Actually, Case 1 starts with a solid black bar (a separator). Case caption: ISAAK BELOGOLOVKIN, Appellant, v 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC et al., Defendants, and DUANE READE, INC., Respondent. [825 NYS2d 543] Wait, the text on page 514 starts mid-sentence. That‘s partial. Then we have a separator and the Belogolovkin case. Then on page 515, we have another separator and the Colon case. I will convert the Belogolovkin case. Case Name: ISAAK BELOGOLOVKIN v 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC et al. Short Name: Belogolovkin v. 1100-1114 Kings Highway LLC Citation: 825 NYS2d 543 Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Second Department - inferred from the location of Kings County and the names of the judges) Actually, the instructions say “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This matches the text from the top of page 514. I will begin with Belogolovkin. The citation for Belogolovkin is listed in the header as 514. In NY Official Reports, this would be 34 AD3d 514. One more thing: The images show a black bar between cases. I should ignore the previous partial text. Let‘s check the citations within Belogolovkin: Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985] Palmer v Vitrano, 29 AD3d 656, 657 [2006] Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940, 941 [2006] Rosa v Food Dynasty, 307 AD2d 1031 [2003] Sewer v Fat Albert‘s Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414 [1997] The prompt says “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. The case name in the OCR/PDF for Belogolovkin is: ISAAK BELOGOLOVKIN, Appellant, v 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC et al., Defendants, and DUANE READE, INC., Respondent. [825 NYS2d 543] I‘ll proceed with HTML. Case Information block: Case name: ISAAK BELOGOLOVKIN, Appellant, v 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC et al., Defendants, and DUANE READE, INC., Respondent. Short name: Belogolovkin v. 1100-1114 Kings Highway LLC Citation: 825 NYS2d 543 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: (None provided in text, won‘t hallucinate) Wait, the “In an action...” paragraph usually lists the attorneys and court below. “Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department” is the court. I can see the judges (Goldstein, Rivera, Spolzino, Skelos). I‘ll start with Case Info, then the page marker for 514, but Belogolovkin actually starts mid-page. Instruction: “Place at word boundaries, not mid-word... Only include page markers where content follows“. Belogolovkin starts on page 514. Body text: In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated June 30, 2005, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Duane Reade, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Duane Reade, Inc., is denied. The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he tripped over a shopping basket located on the floor of a store leased and operated by the defendant Duane Reade, Inc. (hereinafter Duane Reade). According to the plaintiff, prior to the accident, he observed Duane Reade employees moving and filling shopping baskets and placing these baskets on the floor. The plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted the cross motion of Duane Reade for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. We reverse. In support of its cross motion, Duane Reade failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). A triable issue of fact exists as to whether Duane Reade employees created a dangerous condition by allegedly placing the subject shopping basket near the plaintiff (see Palmer v Vitrano, 29 AD3d 656, 657 [2006]; Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940, 941 [2006]; cf. Rosa v Food Dynasty, 307 AD2d 1031 [2003]; Sewer v Fat Albert‘s Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied Duane Reade‘s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Goldstein, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur. Pagination: Starts on 514. Page break after “from so much of an or-“. Wait, OCR: “the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an or- [page 515] der of the Supreme Court...” So the marker goes between “or-” and “der“. “Place at word boundaries, not mid-word“. Instruction says rejoin hyphenated breaks. “or-der” becomes “order“. So: “...from so much of an order of the Supreme Court...” Citations: Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985] Palmer v Vitrano, 29 AD3d 656, 657 [2006] Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940, 941 [2006] Rosa v Food Dynasty, 307 AD2d 1031 [2003] Sewer v Fat Albert‘s Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414 [1997] The text also contains “Goldstein, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.” as the final line. This looks like the signature block/panel. The second case “CARLOS J. COLON...” starts but the opinion body isn‘t there. So I skip it. Final check on metadata: Short Name: Belogolovkin v. 1100-1114 Kings Highway LLC Court: N.Y. App. Div. Citation: 825 NYS2d 543 Case info:

ISAAK BELOGOLOVKIN, Appellant, v 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC et al., Defendants, and DUANE READE, INC., Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 543]

Wait, I should check if there is a docket. The OCR for the caption says “v 1100-1114 KINGS HIGHWAY LLC et al., Defendants, and DUANE READE, INC., Respondent. [825NYS2d543]” No docket number is apparent. Let‘s code the citations. Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985] Palmer v Vitrano, 29 AD3d 656, 657 [2006] Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940, 941 [2006] Rosa v Food Dynasty, 307 AD2d 1031 [2003] Sewer v Fat Albert‘s Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414 [1997] One small detail: The OCR shows “[825NYS2d543]” which I‘ve used as the citation. Wait, on p 515 it says “Goldstein, J.E, Rivera, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.” It‘s “J.P.” not “J.E“. OCR error. I will use the image: “Goldstein, J.P.” The pagination: goes before the caption. Actually, the instruction: “Always start with immediately after (where X is the first page number)“. The content starts on 514. One more thing: rejoin hyphenated line breaks. “or-der” -> “order” “num-erous” (in the first partial case, but I skip that) “exis-tence” (skip) “or-der” is the only one in the target case. Wait, looking at page 515 OCR: “summary judg-ment” -> “summary judgment” “alleg-edly” -> “allegedly” “ac-cident” -> “accident” “here-inafter” -> “hereinafter” “is-sues” -> “issues” “alleg-edly” -> “allegedly” “triable is-sue” -> “triable issue” (on page 515) I will fix these. Wait, I missed “order” hyphen on 514: “so much of an or-der” OCR 514: “...from so much of an or-” OCR 515: “der of the Supreme Court...” So: “...from so much of an order of the Supreme Court...” Actually, the instruction says “Place at word boundaries, not mid-word“. So: “...from so much of an order...” Yes. Let‘s build the HTML.