You are here: / / DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS EVERY THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED...

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS EVERY THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant in this slip and fall case. The plaintiffs had sufficiently identified the cause of the fall (uneven floor). Defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate the uneven floor was not a dangerous condition, and further failed to affirmatively demonstrate she had no notice of the condition and she did not create the condition. [Once again, a defendant must affirmatively address all possible theories of recovery in a motion for summary judgment.]:

 

To impose liability upon a defendant for a plaintiff’s injuries, there must be evidence showing the existence of a dangerous or defective condition, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time … . Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the circumstances of each case, and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject staircase was not in a defective condition and that she did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of such condition … . Since the defendant failed to meet her burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers. Davis v Sutton, 2016 NY Slip Op 00923, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY RAISED BY COMPLAINT)/SLIP AND FALL (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY RAISED BY COMPLAINT)

You might also like
THE “CONSENT TO SEARCH” PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE NATURE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENDANT WAS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING HE RESIDED AT AN ADDRESS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD THE MANDATORY STATUTORY HEARING; APPEAL IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF LASTING CONSEQUENCES OF THE ‘DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER’ FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
SIDEWALK DAMAGE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AFFIRMATIVE NEGLIGENCE BY THE CITY; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELING OR TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioner Met Burden of Establishing His Acknowledgment of Paternity Was Signed by Reason of a Mistake of Fact/Petitioner Not Estopped from Denying Paternity
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (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

FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE... DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY...