You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT CAUSE OF FALL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...

QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT CAUSE OF FALL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CONDITION.

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether a slimy substance caused the ladder to slip (causation) and whether defendant had constructive notice of the condition:

Here, the defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff could not identify what had caused the ladder to move without engaging in speculation … . In opposition, the plaintiff submitted the deposition testimony of a nonparty witness, which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged slimy substance had caused the ladder to move and, consequently, the plaintiff to fall and sustain personal injuries … . Additionally, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant, who did not inspect the garage within the week prior to the accident, had constructive notice of the alleged slimy condition … . Giordano v Giordano, 2016 NY Slip Op 04177, 2nd Dept 6-1-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT CAUSE OF FALL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CONDITION)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT CAUSE OF FALL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CONDITION)

You might also like
IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT DAMAGES TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT OFFERED PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGED VEHICLE AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT RECORDS WHICH WERE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATIONS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; NO “ESPINAL” EXCEPTIONS WERE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR DEMONSTRATED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT MAKE THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PRESENTED ONLY SPECULATION ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE, A SEPARATE PAPER, WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE, AS REQUIRED BY THE UCC; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S PROOF OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THE MATTER WAS ARBITRABLE INSTEAD OF SENDING IT TO AN ARBITRATION PANEL, THE APPELLANTS ARGUED THEY WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND DEPT ASKED FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (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

ONCE INJURED FIREFIGHTER BEGAN RECEIVING GENERAL MUNICIPLA LAW 207-a BENEFITS,... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRS AND HANDRAIL CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDI...