Rabadi v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment because plaintiff failed to prove that defendant created the alleged dangerous condition, which was a “rolled up” carpet in the produce aisle
• requiring the existence of a “dangerous condition” in a slip-and-fall case, and finding such a condition existed in the form of a “rolled up” carpet in the produce aisle of a grocery store
• “A plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case must establish that the defendant either created the condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the condition . . . .”
• treating “rolled up” carpet as dangerous condition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• O'Callaghan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2002-05-13· cited 3×
• Andaloro v. Hidden Ponds Development Corp.
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2000-06-05· cited 2×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History
  New York Court of Appeals· 1986-03-25· cited 1,906×
• Bykofsky v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, Inc.
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1994-12-12· cited 65×
• Rossi v. Arnot Ogden Medical Center
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1998-07-16· cited 37×
• Rotunno v. Pathmark
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1995-10-16· cited 22×
• Acosta v. 888 7th Avenue Associates
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1998-03-24· cited 8×
• Hughes v. Carrols Corp.
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1998-03-19· cited 7×
• Surace v. Lostrappo
  New York Supreme Court· 1998-03-23· cited 4×