You are here: / / More than One Possible Cause of Icy Condition Required Grant of Summary...

More than One Possible Cause of Icy Condition Required Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant

The Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff alleged that the black ice which caused the fall was the result of water dripping from a gutter on defendant’s property. It had been drizzling for several days prior to the fall and was drizzling on the day of the fall. The court determined the attempt to link the icy condition to the dripping gutter was too speculative to support the action:

A real property owner or a party in possession or control of real property will be held liable for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only if it created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . “Where the facts proven show that there are several possible causes of an injury, for one or more of which the defendant was not responsible, and it is just as reasonable and probable that the injury was the result of one cause as the other, plaintiff cannot have a recovery, since he [or she] has failed to prove that the negligence of the defendant caused the injury” … .  Morreale v Esposito, 2013 NY Slip Op 05803, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

You might also like
THE BANK PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable—Criteria Described
Replevin and Order of Seizure (Asserting a Superior Right to Property) Explained
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Provide Addresses of Witnesses and the Nature of Their Testimony Justified the Denial of Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue
Defendant Denied Constitutional Right to Present a Defense—Evidence Victim Identified Another as the Perpetrator Wrongly Excluded
THE FIRST NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLUMBING CONTRACT; THE PURPORTED AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED $2.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS PROPERLY DENIED (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

Not Enough Time Passed to Invoke Constructive Notice of Icy Condition Under... Gaps in Treatment Precluded “Continuous Treatment Doctrine” in Medical Malpractice...