You are here: / / SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD ...
,

SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT.

NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE.

The Second Department affirmed the grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case. The presence of a 1 1/2 inch deep hole in a sidewalk, larger than a silver dollar, with cracks radiating from the hole, was not sufficient to demonstrate the defect existed long enough to give defendants notice of it:

An employee of the restaurant in charge of its day-to-day operations testified at his deposition that he did not observe any defects … . Further, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that, although she had visited the restaurant at least 10 times in the year preceding her accident, she had never observed the alleged sidewalk defect prior to her accident. She described the defect which caused her to fall as cracks radiating from a hole 1½ inches deep, with a diameter larger than a silver dollar. That description, did not, by itself, indicate that the alleged defect was present for a sufficient length of time to give the defendants constructive notice of its existence. Gallway v Muintir, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05971, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT)/SLIP AND FALL (SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT)/SIDEWALKS (SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT)

You might also like
THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION WHEN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS BLOCKED BY A POLICE CAR; THE APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A RULING WHICH WAS NOT EXPLICIT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING WITHIN THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Mail Summons and Complaint to the Address the Property Owner Designated for the Receipt of All Relevant Correspondence Required Vacation of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale—Property Owner Was Never Properly Served Pursuant to CPLR 308(2)
JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL; EVEN A WORKER AUTHORIZED TO BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET CAN CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER MAY BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Property Owner’s Liability for an Assault by an Intoxicated Guest Explained
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
AN INSURER WHO HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND THE INSUREDS BECAUSE OF LATE NOTIFICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION IN THE POLICY, MAY NOT RECOVER THE COSTS OF DEFENDING THE ACTION FROM THE INSUREDS AND THE SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REARGUE MERELY REPEATED HER EARLIER ARGUMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COURT HAD OVERLOOKED OR MISUNDERSTOOD FACTS OR LAW; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall/Therefore, There Was an Insufficient Showing of a Connection Between Alleged Building Code Violations and the Fall

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COURT SHOULD NOT MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS OR WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE... HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PROPER UNDER...