You are here: / / EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF...

EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Defendant offered evidence only of its general cleaning practices rather than specific evidence when the area was lasted cleaned or inspected:

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the defendant’s caretaker, submitted in support of the motion, did not establish when the accident site was last inspected in relation to the plaintiff’s fall. The caretaker merely testified about general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, which is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice … . Jeremias v Lake Forest Estates, 2017 NY Slip Op 00635, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

NEGLIGENCE (EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
Abutting Landowner Not Responsible for Condition of Sidewalk Tree Well; Open and Obvious Condition Relates Only to Comparative Negligence
THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE BASED UPON STRIKING THE VICTIM WITH HER CAR; IN SUMMATION THE PROSECUTOR CHARACTERIZED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS AS INTENTIONAL, DENIGRATED THE DEFENSE THEORIES, REFERRED TO IRRELEVANT CONDUCT, AND ASSUMED FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT; THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE, EVEN THOUGH THE INITIAL ACTION WAS TIMELY ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION IN CPLR 205(A), THE SECOND ACTION, COMMENCED AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST FOR LACK OF STANDING, CAN BE DEEMED TIMELY UNDER A SECOND CPLR 205(A) SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION (SECOND DEPT).​ ​
Allegations of Economic Injury Not Sufficient to Establish Standing to Challenge Governmental Action Under State Environmental Quality Review Act
Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied
Questions of Fact Raised About Fairness of Facially Valid Prenuptial Agreement
THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL.

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A TREE... DEFENDANT MADE A SUDDEN LEFT TURN IN FRONT ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF...