You are here: / / Proof of General Cleaning Procedures Not Sufficient for Summary Judgment...
,

Proof of General Cleaning Procedures Not Sufficient for Summary Judgment to Defendant in a Slip and Fall Case

In a slip and fall case, reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department explained (once again) that proof of general cleaning procedures (as opposed to proof when the area in question was last inspected or cleaned) is not sufficient to warrant summary judgment to the defendant:

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . To meet their burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendants were required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the injured plaintiff’s fall … . “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Here, the affidavit of the Safety and Security Manager for the subject IKEA store, which was submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, only provided information about the store’s general cleaning and inspection procedures concerning the promenade, and did not show when the subject area had last been inspected or cleaned prior to the happening of the accident … . Thus, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition was too trivial to be actionable, or was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. Barris v One Beard St., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02083, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

You might also like
Violation of Right to Counsel Deemed Harmless Error
Abutting Landowner Not Responsible for Condition of Sidewalk Tree Well; Open and Obvious Condition Relates Only to Comparative Negligence
DEFENDANT STRUCK THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT HIS FOOT SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL DID NOT PRESENT A NONEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OR TRIGGER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENCE OF A COMMA, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DICTATE THE MEANING OF A CODE PROVISION.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NON-PARTY SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Landowners Who Have Been Granted a Variance Are Necessary Parties In an Action Challenging the Variance (CPLR 1001 (b))
THE MOTION COURT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE CROSS-CLAIMS (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

When the One-Year Statute of Limitations Begins to Run for False Arrest, Malicious... Abutting-Property-Owners Not Responsible for Defects in Sidewalk Tree Wells/City...