You are here: / / Under the Facts, a Stairwell Partially Covered by a Piece of Wood Was Not...

Under the Facts, a Stairwell Partially Covered by a Piece of Wood Was Not an Unreasonably Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined that a stairwell leading to the basement of defendant’s restaurant, which was partially covered by a piece of wood, did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition.  Plaintiff fell down the stairwell after leaving a nearby bar by the back door and climbing over a fence:

A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition to prevent foreseeable injuries … . The scope of such duty is determined in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk … . “Absent a hazardous condition or other circumstance giving rise to an obligation to provide exterior lighting for a particular area, landowners are generally not required to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness’”… .

[Defendant] submitted evidence demonstrating that it was not aware of any other prior similar incidents or injuries on its premises and that there was no access between the rear of its premises and the rear portions of the stores situated to the west of it, which included the subject bar. Additionally, [defendant’s] submissions demonstrated that the restaurant was closed at the time of the incident, that the back door of the restaurant was locked, and that none of [defendant’s] employees was at the premises. Thus, [defendant] established, prima facie, that under the circumstances of this case, the basement stairwell partially covered by a piece of wood did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Assefa v Bam, 2013 NY Slip Op 08220, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

You might also like
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVIT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT DESIGN, WHICH HAD A UNITY OF INTEREST WITH DEFENDANT EISENBACH, DESIGN’S CEO; THE PLAINTIFF HAD AGREED TO DISCONTINUE THE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST EISENBACH BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON EISENBACH’S BEHALF (SECOND DEPT).
A TREE IS NOT A “BUILDING OR STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1); THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, INCURRED WHILE CUTTING A LIMB OFF A TREE, WAS NOT COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE INITIAL JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS INCORRECT; ALTHOUGH THE CORRECT INSTRUCTION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN, THE INCORRECT INSTRUCTION WAS NEVER WITHDRAWN; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
GUILTY PLEA INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE VACATED.
WHEN THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK SPOKE TO THE JURORS ABOUT A JURY NOTE WHILE THE JURORS WERE DELIBERATING, THE CLERK DISCUSSED CONCEPTS OF NEGLIGENCE, FAULT AND CERTAIN FACTS OF THE CASE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD 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

Proof of Value of Property For Purposes of Entering a Deficiency Judgment Not... Defaulting Defendant Forfeits the Right to Discovery Re: Inquest on Damages