You are here: / / Requirements for Prima Facie Case Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained...
,

Requirements for Prima Facie Case Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained (Re: Existence of Hazardous Condition)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The court explained the plaintiff's standard of proof when the existence of a hazardous condition (here a slippery substance on stairs) is demonstrated by circumstantial evidence.  The court noted that a defendant's self-serving affidavit (claiming that nothing was spilled on the stairs) was not sufficient to warrant summary judgment in defendant's favor:

“To prove a prima facie case of negligence in a case based on a hazardous condition, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition” … . “To establish a prima facie case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence, [i]t is enough that [the plaintiff] shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred'” … . “The law does not require that plaintiff's proof positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant's negligence” … . “Rather, [the plaintiff's] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote' or technical' to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . “A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely or more reasonable that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant's negligence than by some other agency” … . Quiroz v 176 N Main LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00863, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


You might also like
THE SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ON RECORD WHEN DEFENDANT BANK ISSUED A LOAN SECURED BY THE PROPERTY WAS FORGED AND THEREFORE VOID; DEFENDANT BANK, THEREFORE, WAS NOT PROTECTED AS A BONA FIDE ENCUMBRANCER FOR VALUE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY LAW 266 (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Proof Requirements for “Breach of Employment Contract” and “Labor Law Article 6” Actions
A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN A POLICE REPORT TO THE EFFECT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS THE RESULT OF “WILFUL NEGLECT;” THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1523, DEFENDANT’S “WILFUL-NEGLECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE UNDERLYING AUTO LIABILITY POLICY REQUIRED BY ITS UMBRELLA POLICY, UMBRELLA POLICY REFORMED TO RESTORE THE RESULTING GAP IN COVERAGE.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRIST ALLEGED HE CALLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO TELL HER SHE SHOULD SEE ANOTHER PSYCHIATRIST, THE NEXT SCHEDULED APPOINTMENT WITH DEFENDANT WAS NOT CANCELLED; THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED AND RENDERED THE ACTION TIMELY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT 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

Evidence Did Not Support Finding of Neglect Based Upon Mother’s Mental... “Big Apple” Map Provided City with Written Notice of a Tree-Well...