You are here: / / Proof of Lack of Constructive Notice Insufficient.

Proof of Lack of Constructive Notice Insufficient.

The Second Department explained that “[m]ere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” in opposing a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  Mahoney vs AMC Entertainment, Inc., 2012-00582, Index No. 2258/08, Second Dept. 2-27-13

 

You might also like
“Law of the Case” Does Not Bind Appellate Courts
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON THE POLICE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING THE (STOLEN) WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET AND SEARCHING IT; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS UNDER THE STANDARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
COURTS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW EVEN IF BASED ON INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW ADDRESSED AN OMISSION IN THE ORGINGAL MOTION PAPERS WHICH THE JUDGE HAD RAISED SUA SPONTE AS THE GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition Alleged to Have Caused Plaintiff to Fall–Defendant Therefore Not Entitled to Summary Judgment
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights Violated When Officer Opened an Envelope Containing Defendant’s Personal Belongings at the Hospital Where Defendant Was Being Treated—The Fact that the Officer Thought Defendant Was a Crime Victim at the Time Does Not Matter—The Personal Belongings, Which Included Evidence of a Robbery, Should Have Been Suppressed
LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Recovery for On-the-Job Injury Against “Alter Ego” of Plaintiff’s Employer Limited to Workers’ Compensation

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

County Did Not Have the Power to Enact a Local Law to Repeal State Laws Concerning... Standing to Seek Review of Site Plan Approval Based Upon Interest in Protecting...