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
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SIDEWALK LOW-LYING TRIPPING HAZARD NARROWED THE PASSABLE AREA AND WAS VISIBLE AT NIGHT.
COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WITHOUT SPECIFYING PARTICULAR DATES OR WEEKS; AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WILL SUPPORT A “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; THE INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER GRAVE INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 11 (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FIRST DEPT).
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration
PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE SCAFFOLD OR A FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
CLAIMANT COULD NOT SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERIODIC FLOODING OF HIS LOT UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW; THERE WAS NO DE JURE TAKING BY THE CITY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION WERE NOT MET (FIRST 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

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