You are here: / / Failure to Affirmatively Demonstrate When the Area Where the Slip and Fall...

Failure to Affirmatively Demonstrate When the Area Where the Slip and Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected and Failure to Affirmatively Demonstrate the Condition Was a “Latent Defect” Precluded Summary Judgment—Defendants Failed to Affirmatively Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case, in another illustration of the need to eliminate every possible theory of recovery in order to be awarded summary judgment.  Here it was alleged plaintiff slipped and fell on a loose piece of slate. Defendants demonstrated the absence of actual notice, but did not present evidence of when the area was last inspected prior to the fall and did not demonstrate the defect was “latent” (which would have demonstrated the absence of constructive notice):

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the defendants] to discover and remedy it” … . “When a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, constructive notice may not be imputed” … . In demonstrating that it lacked constructive notice of a visible and apparent defect, “the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff” slipped and fell … .

Here, the deposition testimony … established, prima facie, that the defendants did not create or have actual notice of the allegedly loose piece of slate on the slate stone landing which allegedly caused the plaintiff Patrick Bergin to fall … . However, in the absence of any evidence as to when the defendants last inspected the landing before the accident …, or that the allegedly loose piece of slate on the landing was a latent defect that could not have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection … , the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly loose piece of slate on the landing … . Bergin v Golshani, 2015 NY Slip Op 06103, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

You might also like
DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING STEMMING FROM A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REVERSED; MOTHER HAD SUCCESSFULLY PARTICIPATED IN MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SINCE THE NEGLECT FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE OLDER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE; AND (3), COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THE AREA OF THE FALL TO PLAINTIFF TENANT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECURRING COLLECTION OF WATER AND ICE IN THE AREA OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT DURING DISCOVERY, AND SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SWEEPING THE FLOOR WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY BY A PIECE OF A SKIDLOADER USED TO HOIST A MOTOR, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (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

Court of Claims Must Determine the Interests of All Parties Named by the Attorney... Questions of Fact Whether Infant-Plaintiff’s Injury at the Hands of Other...