You are here: / / Riser In Church Was Not an Actionable Condition

Riser In Church Was Not an Actionable Condition

The Second Department determined a riser, upon which plaintiff allegedly tripped, was an open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:

The injured plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a 5½-inch-high, single-step riser while exiting a church pew. * * *

While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner …, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous … . Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the subject riser was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . The evidence presented by the plaintiffs in opposition, including the affidavit of their expert, failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Coppola v Cure of Ars RC Church, 2014 NY Slip Op 05297, 2nd Dept 7-16-17

 

You might also like
UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION AS SANDOVAL EVIDENCE.
THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INITIALLY DENIED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON THE MOTION TO RENEW; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW, AND A MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A DECEASED PARTY ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Defaulting Defendant Forfeits the Right to Discovery Re: Inquest on Damages
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE EXACERBATED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD A VERIFICATION IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FALL FROM A LADDER WHICH WAS NOT SECURED, AND WHICH SHOOK AND THEN KICKED OUT FROM UNDER PLAINTIFF, ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED PLAINTIFF WOULD PAY DEFENDANT ABOUT $38,500 AND PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MONTHLY PAYMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S REVENUE TOTALING ABOUT $52,500 WAS NOT A “LOAN” TO WHICH THE USURY DEFENSE COULD BE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
BENEFICIARIES OF ESTATE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO PRESERVE AN ESTATE ASSET, ONLY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE HAS THAT POWER.

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

Police Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Justify Request that 12-Year-Old... Ambiguity About the Timing of a Final Decision from an Administrative Agency...