You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION...
,

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, partially reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of a wet condition where plaintiff fell, but the cause of action based on the absence of a handrail should not have been dismissed:

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it had rained shortly before or at the time of plaintiff’s accident and continued shortly afterward, that they did not have constructive notice of the wet condition, as defendants’ porter averred that he had inspected the stairs 15 minutes prior to plaintiff’s fall and did not observe any wet condition, and they had no complaints of wetness prior to plaintiff’s fall. Moreover, defendants had a doormat in the vestibule to permit people to wipe their feet as they entered … .  In opposition, plaintiff did not submit any evidence as to the time elapsed between the cessation of the rain and his accident, and thus failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had a reasonable amount of time to remedy the wet condition … .

The court, however, improperly dismissed plaintiff’s claim that defendants failed to install handrails on the subject staircase. The stairs which led to the door providing egress from the building to the outside were interior stairs requiring handrails (Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375 …). Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether the absence of handrails was a proximate cause of his fall by submitting his expert’s affidavit stating that the absence of handrails was a dangerous departure from accepted standards and the applicable building code … . Lee v Alma Realty Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00101, 1jst Dept 1-10-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/STORM IN PROGRESS (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HANDRAILS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF AN ALLEGED BROKEN LOCK, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AS OPPOSED TO AN INVITED GUEST, AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS THE VICTIM OF A TARGETED ATTACK, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Records Sealed Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.50 Can Be Unsealed in “Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding Pursuant to Mental Health Law
Broker’s Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Implied Contract and Unjust Enrichment—Complaint Alleged Broker Was Entitled to a Commission Where Defendant Buyers Abandoned the Potential Purchase in which Broker Was Involved and 18 Months Later Purchased Nearly Identical Property from the Same Seller
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE AT A RODRIGUEZ HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
LAY WITNESSES PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN A VIDEO AS THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
A DEFAMATION COMPLAINT DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION LACKS A “SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE LIMITED RELIEF AVAILABLE TO A DISSENTING MEMBER AFTER THE MERGER OF TWO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON AN UNEVEN MAT WHEN SHE STEPPED OFF THE DEFENDANT’S SKATING RINK; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COMPANY WHICH SOLD AND INSTALLED THE MAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THE SKATING RINK AND THE SELLER/INSTALLER OF THE MAT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SELLER/INSTALLER OF THE MAT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST 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

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION... NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE...