You are here: / / FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH...

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall case should have been dismissed. Although plaintiff alleged she slipped on a marble floor, she did not know the cause of her fall:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . Scimone v LT Propco, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05915, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

You might also like
STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITIONS AND MADE FINDINGS ENABLING THE CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATE (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION SEEKING FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Prove Shared Intent (Accessorial Liability) Required Dismissal of Robbery Counts Under a Weight of the Evidence Analysis
Libel Action Against Reporter Dismissed—No Showing of Gross Irresponsibility in Gathering and Verifying Information
Conflicting Interests Prevented Attorney from Representing Both the Driver and Passenger in a Stopped Car Which Was Rear-Ended
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE; THE PURSUED CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR; THE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER AND THE TOWN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY,... LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE...