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
In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant Was Entitled to Summary Judgment After Demonstrating None of the Three Theories of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Applied—Because the Facts Are Not Discussed, It Is Not Clear Why All Three Potential Theories Were Addressed in this Action But Only One Needed to Be Addressed in the Other (To Be Safe, Address All Three?)
IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CASE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND SHIFTED; DEFENDANT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF TOLD HIS SUPERVISOR HE LOST HIS BALANCE AND JUMPED FROM THE LADDER, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUMMONS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO DEFEND THE ACTION, AND DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Justified/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE PORT AUTHORITY, THE APPLICABLE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST BE SERVED AT LEAST 60 DAYS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION (NOT 60 DAYS AFTER THE ACCRUAL OF THE ACTION); THEREFORE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE IS NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR A TORT ACTION AGAINST A CHARTER SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION ALLEGED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A MODIFICATION-OF-CUSTODY HEARING; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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...