You are here: / / No Demonstrated Connection Between Stair-Related Code Violations and I...

No Demonstrated Connection Between Stair-Related Code Violations and Injury

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case, the Second Department noted that there was evidence the step risers and tread did not meet code requirements, but there was insufficient evidence connecting the defect with the accident:

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff submitted expert evidence that the step risers and treads did not comply with various sections of, inter alia, the New York City Building Code. However, the plaintiff’s assertion that these alleged stairway defects proximately caused her accident is based on sheer speculation …, and is, in fact, contradicted by the record. Humphrey v Merivil, 2013 NY Slip Op 05799, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

You might also like
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH A PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDER, THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A VAILD 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
Contract of Adhesion/Unconscionable-Contract Cause of Action Should Have Survived Summary Judgment
Termination of Participation in Affordable Housing Program Is Not a Taxable Transfer
PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH.
HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION.
ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS GENERALLY AWARE FATHER HAD MOVED TO DELAWARE, FATHER DID NOT SPECIFY AN AGENT FOR SERVICE AS REQUIRED BY THE FAMILY COURT ACT; THEREFORE SERVICE OF MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER AT FATHER’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact Re: Whether Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition Thereby Negating the Written-Notice Requirement
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Proximate Cause Can Not Be Based Upon Speculation; Many Possible Causes Question of Fact Raised About Whether Snow-Removal Contractor Created or Exacerbated...