You are here: / / Proof of Janitorial Schedule Insufficient to Demonstrate Lack of Notice...

Proof of Janitorial Schedule Insufficient to Demonstrate Lack of Notice of Dangerous Condition

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined proof of a janitorial cleaning schedule was not sufficient to demonstrate defendant’s lack of notice of a dangerous condition. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Defendant building owner moved for summary judgment solely on the basis that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, a missing drain cover in the building’s laundry room. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that it did not have constructive notice … . Although the building superintendent testified that he routinely swept the laundry room every morning at 8:00 a.m. and performed daily inspections of the building, including the laundry room, at 11:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. each day, mere proof of a set janitorial schedule does not prove that it was followed on the day of the accident, or eliminate the issue of constructive notice in this case … . The superintendent could not recall whether he had checked the laundry room on the day of the accident or offer any other evidence regarding the last time he inspected the laundry room prior to the accident … . He explicitly stated that he did know whether the allegedly defective condition existed on that date. Dylan P. v Webster Place Assoc., L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 07600, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

You might also like
Rights of Adopted Children.
HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WAS DEEMED NONCONSENSUAL SOLELY BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS 14; THE DEFENDANT WAS 27; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO RISK LEVEL ONE; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE TAILGATE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Defendant Entitled to Suppression Hearing Where People Provided No Information About How Defendant Came to the Attention of Law Enforcement Personnel
HERE THE PROVISIONS IN THE LETTER AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SELL THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT). ​
PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING.

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

Judicial Notice and Collateral Estoppel Re: Philippine Law and a Philippine... Criteria for Whether Public Employer/Employee Dispute Is Arbitrable Explain...