midpage

Pascarella v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Pascarella v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Feb 6, 2001
Versions:280 A.D.2d 279
720 N.Y.S.2d 461
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1376

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered October 13, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted since plaintiffs failed to submit competent evidence that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard, i.e., creamy perfume on the floor of its cosmetics department, prior to plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall. Alleged statements by unidentified employees of defendant purportedly made to plaintiff, that they had seen the foreign substance on the floor prior to the incident and had asked someone to clean it up, were not competent evidence to defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion since, inter alia, the alleged statements were not shown to have been made within the scope of the employees’ authority (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 58 NY2d 1040, 1041; Cassanova v General Cinema Corp., 237 AD2d 155). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Pascarella v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Feb 6, 2001
Citations: 280 A.D.2d 279; 720 N.Y.S.2d 461; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1376
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
Log In