You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER...

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defect in a sidewalk was trivial, and whether plaintiff could identify the cause of her fall. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

Photographs of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell depict a deteriorated area with various cracks in several adjacent slabs on the side of the walk bordering the street. In the location where plaintiff alleges her accident occurred, the deteriorated area takes up approximately one third of the sidewalk. The photographs reveal that the cracked section of concrete where plaintiff fell is depressed below the surface of the rest of the sidewalk, creating a raised, irregular vertical edge measuring, as previously noted, approximately one inch high and 18 inches long. In view of the length and depth of the crack where the fall occurred, the uneven surface of the walkway and the overall size of the deteriorated area, we agree with Supreme Court that it cannot be determined as a matter of law that the condition “was so trivial and slight in nature that it could not reasonably have been foreseen that an accident would happen” … .

Defendant likewise failed to meet its burden to prove on a prima facie basis that plaintiff’s identification of the location of her fall was too uncertain to establish that the defect was the proximate cause of the fall. A defendant can meet this burden by proving “that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation” … . However, even when a plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of a fall with certainty, “a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiff[] show[s] facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred” … .

Here, although plaintiff acknowledged the delay in identifying the cause of her fall, she testified that she knew that her toe had caught on some object and decided to examine the location in question because she knew that it was “where something has to be.” She identified the cracked area as “exactly that spot that [her] shoe caught.” Brumm v St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, 2016 NY Slip Op 07079, 3rd Dept 10-27-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/TRIVIAL DEFECTS (SIDEWALKS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

You might also like
THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER HAD, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDED OVER A DIFFERENT CUSTODY MATTER INVOLVING MOTHER, BUT INVOLVING DIFFERENT CHIDREN AND A DIFFERENT FATHER, DID NOT REQUIRE AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFACTION OF THE AFC PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 17 (THIRD DEPT).
USE OF MOTION TO REARGUE TO RAISE NEW ISSUES REQUIRED REVERSAL.
DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT TO SINK INTO SOFT ASPHALT WAS TRIVIAL OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
THERE WERE PARALLEL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM PETITIONER’S ALLEGED ABUSE OF A PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT ABUSE THE PATIENT WAS ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT IN THE PARALLEL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
“No Damages for Delay” and “Mandatory Notice” Clauses Precluded Suit
WHEN THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT WERE DISCUSSED BOTH TWO AND THREE-YEAR SENTENCES WERE MENTIONED; DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION AND WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
Detention by Immigration Officials Did Not Disqualify Claimant from Receiving Workers’ Compensation Benefits
Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff from Taking a Position Contrary to the Position Plaintiff Took In Two Prior Successful Actions

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

ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DIS... OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT...