Kaufman v Starbucks Corp.
2026 NY Slip Op 02203 [248 AD3d 506]
April 14, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Carol Kaufman, Respondent,
v
Starbucks Corporation, Appellant.
April 14, 2026
HEADNOTES
Negligence — Maintenance of Premises — Summary Judgment
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Julia Audibert of counsel), for appellant.
John E. Lavelle Law Firm P.C., Williston Park (John E. Lavelle of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Morales-Minerva, J.), entered May 5, 2025, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, who fell in defendant's coffee shop after she allegedly "collided" with one or more other persons, sues defendant for the injuries she allegedly sustained in the fall on the theory that the collision resulted from overcrowding in the store. The only evidence defendant submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was the testimony of a barista who was not working at the time of plaintiff's accident and therefore could not attest to the conditions in the store at that time. Defendant failed to carry its burden as the movant to present evidence establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Concur—Moulton, J.P., Friedman, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.