You are here: / / Store Not Required to Continuously Mop Up Tracked-In Rain

Store Not Required to Continuously Mop Up Tracked-In Rain

In affirming the dismissal of a personal injury complaint the Second Department noted that defendant store-owners were “not required to cover all of [their] floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” … . Valentin v Shoprite of Chester, 2013 NY Slip Op 02739, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

SLIP AND FALL

You might also like
MOTHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THE STIPULATION UNDERLYING THE EXISTING CUSTODY ORDER; BECAUSE THE STIPULATION WAS NOT IN THE RECORD AND ITS TERMS WERE NOT IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
Evidence of General Cleaning Practices, As Opposed to Evidence When the Area of the Slip and Fall Was Last Inspected and Cleaned, Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition
FAILURE TO RETURN KEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO SURRENDER THE APARTMENT, TENANT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSIT.
INSURANCE AGENCY ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE INSURED WHICH RESULTED IN A LOWER PREMIUM, THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING ON A WET RAILROAD TIE WHICH LINED A PATH ON THE GOLF COURSE.
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY RE: DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
HOMEOWNER’S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER’S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT’S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

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

Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Allowed Person May Have More that One Residence for Insurance Purposes