You are here: / / WATER ON LOCKER ROOM FLOOR WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO USE OF THE...

WATER ON LOCKER ROOM FLOOR WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO USE OF THE AREA, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged he slipped on water in a locker room in the vicinity of a swimming pool and showers. The majority rejected the argument that water in the locker room was necessarily incidental to the use of the locker room (the dissent’s argument):

[D]efendant cannot obtain summary judgment here by relying on the cases cited by the dissent, in which this Court dismissed personal injury claims arising out of slipping on water in gyms based on the reasoning that “water was necessarily incidental to the use of the area” (Noboa-Jaquez v Town Sports Intl., LLC, 138 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2016]; Dove v Manhattan Plaza Health Club, 113 AD3d 455 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 24 NY3d 901 [2014]). In Dove, the plaintiff “slipped and fell on water located on the tile floor around the indoor pool of defendants’ health club,” prompting this Court to observe that “the presence of such water was necessarily incidental’ to the use of the pool” … . In Noboa-Jaquez, the plaintiff slipped on the tiled floor in the area of the gym’s showers, and this Court applied the same reasoning as in Dove to hold that “[t]he mere presence of water on a tiled floor adjacent to the gym’s showers cannot impart liability, particularly since water was necessarily incidental to the use of the area” … . Neither of those holdings stands for the broader proposition that any water on a tiled floor anywhere in a locker room must preclude a claim for negligence because water is “necessarily incidental” to the entire locker room’s intended use. From the evidence before us, it does not appear that plaintiff was in the shower area, and he had clearly left the pool area. Grossman v TCR, 2016 NY Slip Op 06114, 1st Dept 9-21-16

NEGLIGENCE (WATER ON LOCKER ROOM FLOOR WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO USE OF THE AREA, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (WATER ON LOCKER ROOM FLOOR WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO USE OF THE AREA, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS NEVER SIGNED, IT IS CLEAR THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY IT (FIRST DEPT)
Criteria for Balancing the Need for a Public Trial and First Amendment Rights (Freedom of the Press) With the Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial Discussed in Some Detail—Here the Court’s Sealing of Some Records and Closures of the Courtroom Reflected a Proper Discretionary Balance
THE ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE A FEE DISPUTE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF WHEN THE LEGAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED PRECLUDES THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEE (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION (TOP) WHICH BARRED HER FROM HER OWN APARTMENT WHERE HER CHILDREN LIVED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
A LOOSE DOOR HANDLE CAUSED THE GLASS DOOR TO SHATTER; DEFENDANTS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF WHEN THE DOOR HANDLE WAS LAST INSPECTED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S STEPMOTHER COULD NOT CONSENT TO THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK, WHICH WAS IN THE STEPMOTHER’S APARTMENT, BECAUSE THE POLICE KNEW THE BACKPACK BELONGED TO DEFENDANT; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM A LOWER COURT RULING ON A GROUND NOT RULED ON BY THE LOWER COURT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A LYFT CAR WHICH HAD BEEN ORDERED BY HIS FRIEND THROUGH THE FRIEND’S ACCOUNT; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD SCROLLED THROUGH AND AGREED TO LYFT’S TERMS OF SERVICE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS BOUND BY THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR (FIRST DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (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

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY... CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED,...