4/26/19- Margaret Cravello v. Quick Chek Corporation and Unifirst Corporation.

Plaintiff alleges that on February 25, 2016, she was a patron at the Quick Chek located in Woodbridge, New Jersey. As she was exiting the store, she tripped and fell over a floor mat that she claims was not properly placed down. Plaintiff attributed her fall to the improper placement of the mat by Unifirst and Quick Chek’s failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. As a result of her fall, plaintiff sustained significant orbital floor fractures.

Our client Unifirst was brought into the case by Quick Chek as a third party defendant. Prior to the close of discovery, plaintiff filed a motion to amend their complaint to include Unifirst as a direct defendant. In response, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on the basis that plaintiff failed to name Unifirst as a direct defendant during the applicable statute of limitations. The Court agreed and denied plaintiff’s application to amend their complaint to include Unifirst as a direct defendant. Thereafter, Quick Chek filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that plaintiff cannot prove that they created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition on the premises. Judge Carter granted Quick Chek’s motion which resulted in a dismissal of all claims against the defendants as a matter of law. Christopher C. Mauro and Anthony Buono handled the case from its inception to its dismissal.