You are here: / / Proof Requirements for Lack of Constructive Notice of Dangerous Condition...

Proof Requirements for Lack of Constructive Notice of Dangerous Condition Explained

The Second Department reiterated the summary-judgment proof-requirements for a lack of constructive notice of a hazardous condition in a slip and fall case:

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . In order to meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . A movant cannot satisfy its initial burden merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall because it offered no evidence as to when the subject stairway was last cleaned or inspected.. .  Campbell v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 05553, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

You might also like
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE DELAY IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE MERITS WERE NOT DESCRIBED, AND THE EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICE WAS NOT REBUTTED, HOWEVER THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ABSENT THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH ONLY STEPHEN BOTT SIGNED THE NOTE, BOTH HE AND CHRISTINE BOTT SIGNED THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE CHRISTINE BOTT WAS A “BORROWER” ENTITLED TO SEPARATE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304; THE JOINT NOTICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT’S DETERMINATION FATHER DID NOT SEXUALLY ABUSE HIS CHILD WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD; THE CHILD’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS WERE CORROBORATED, AND FAMILY COURT’S DECISION TO CREDIT THE TESTIMONY OF FATHER’S EXPERT OVER PETITIONER’S EXPERT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
“Substantial Evidence” Standard of Court Review Explained
“Prompt Pay Law” Affords a Private Right of Action Against An Insurer Which Fails to Pay a Patient’s Undisputed Medical Claim
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
No Action Where Plaintiff Struck by Small Piece of Sheetrock Dropped from Third Floor

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 Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant... Criteria for Accountant’s Liability to Third Parties in Absence of Contractual...