You are here: / / Proof of Regular Cleaning Negated Constructive Notice Allegation​
,

Proof of Regular Cleaning Negated Constructive Notice Allegation​

In determining the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should have been granted, the Second Department explained defendant had met its burden on the issue of (the absence of) constructive notice by proof of regular weekly cleaning:

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the condition on which the plaintiff slipped, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition… . ” To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell'”… .  A defendant’s submission of evidence of its general cleaning practices is generally insufficient to meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice … . Here, however, the defendant submitted an affidavit from its superintendent indicating that each and every Monday, he would mop the entire building, including the stairwell where the plaintiff allegedly fell, and that this mopping would always occur between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. This affidavit was specific enough to satisfy the defendant’s initial burden. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Armijos v Vrettos Realty Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03443, 2nd Dept,. 5-15-13

 

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE THE WATER-ON-FLOOR CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE; ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS INSPECTED AT 7:00 AT THE START OF THE EVENT AND SOMETIME THEREAFTER, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL AT 8:30, NEAR THE END OF THE EVENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS BEATEN UP BY OTHER STUDENTS, SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ATTACKERS’ VIOLENT PROPENSITIES AND THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY MEASURES, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NONACTIONABLE AS “TRIVIAL” IS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE JURY; IN OTHER WORDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, CONVICTION REVERSED.
THE CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS PROPERLY APPLIED THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE WHEN IT AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION WHICH NARROWED PLAINTIFF’S BOAT SLIP; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE BOARD FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDOMINIUM BYLAWS, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ALLEGED HE WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED ON A LOOSE MANHOLE COVER OWNED BY DEFENDANT-TOWN; THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION BUT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

Exclusion of Petitioner from Hearing During Testimony of Primary Witness Required... No Demonstration Burst Water Pipe Could Have Been the Result of Negligent Inspection...