You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL...

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant YMCA's failure to demonstrate when the area where plaintiff fell had last been inspected or cleaned required denial of the YMCA's motion for summary judgment:

Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a puddle of water that was on the floor of a YMCA owned and maintained by defendants. The YMCA made a prima facie showing that it did not cause or create the alleged condition, because plaintiff testified that she did not see the YMCA's employees working at the accident location prior to the incident and did not know where the water came from … . The YMCA also made a prima facie showing that it lacked actual notice of the alleged condition, because the building engineer for the premises averred that he oversaw the maintenance of the premises and did not receive complaints about water on the floor prior to the accident … . However, the YMCA failed to make a prima facie showing that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged defect. The building engineer failed to aver as to when the YMCA's employees last cleaned or inspected the accident location before the incident occurred … . Graham v YMCA of Greater N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 01777, 1st Dept 3-15-16

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SLIP AND FALL (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

You might also like
THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING COLLAPSED FOR NO APPARENT REASON; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; IN ANY EVENT THE EXPERT’S OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO LOCK THE SCAFFOLD SPOKE TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
THE TERM “ECONOMIC SECURITY” IN THE NYU FACULTY HANDBOOK DID NOT PROHIBIT A POLICY (THE “REF” POLICY) TYING A TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS’ SALARY-REDUCTION TO THE AMOUNT OF GRANTS PROCURED IN A GIVEN YEAR; THE REF POLICY WAS NOT A DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE; A SPECIFIC SALARY FIGURE IN A TENURED FACULTY MEMBER’S CONTRACT, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BE REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE REF POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PROVIDES NO BROADER SCOPE FOR THE SEARCH THAN WOULD A WARRANT ISSUED BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; HERE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA ON THE CONSOLE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND (FIRST DEPT).
IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS TO RESPONDENTS’ ABUTTING BUILDING TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO LICENSE FEES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, ENGINEERING FEES, ETC., ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BUILDING AND TO COMPENSATE FOR INTERFERERENCE WITH THE USE OF THEIR BUILDING, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY DAMAGE TO RESPONDENTS’ BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT GYM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ACCUMULATION OF DUST ON THE BASKETBALL COURT FLOOR WAS INHERENT IN THE SPORT OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE IS CLEARLY A NEED FOR A STATUTORY MECHANISM TO KEEP CHILDREN WHO ABSCOND FROM PLACEMENT SETTINGS OFF THE STREETS AND SAFE FROM HARM, FAMILY COURT ACT 153 DOES NOT AUTHORIZE AN ARREST WARRANT FOR THIS PURPOSE (FIRST DEPT)
Injury While Lowering a Heavy Tank Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Claim—Party’s Cross Motion Should Not Have Been Denied for Failure to Attach Pleadings—the Pleadings Had Been Provided to the Court by Other Parties
DEFENDANT HAD WITHHELD PAYMENT ON THE CONTRACT AS AN OFFSET FOR THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT; THE AWARD OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO THE DEFENDANT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED A DOUBLE RECOVERY (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

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH PSYCHOPATHY SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE... EXPERT EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY PRECLUDED, NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE OR...