You are here: / / KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT...

KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, the low table over which plaintiff tripped and fell was an open and obvious condition:

The plaintiff Concetta Dalton (hereinafter the plaintiff) was attending a wedding reception at the defendants’ catering hall and allegedly was injured when she tripped over a knee-high table in the lobby of the catering hall and fell. The plaintiff was walking through the lobby area, where there was a crowd of people, to reach the main dining area when the accident occurred. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she did not see the table before she fell. …

Whether a dangerous condition exists on real property so as to create liability on the part of the landowner depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . A condition that is generally apparent “to a person making reasonable use of their senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . The determination of “whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances” … . Dalton v North Ritz Club, 2017 NY Slip Op 01333, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SLIP AND FALL (KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SLIP AND FALL, KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DIDN’T REACH THE LIABILITY ISSUE, THE MERITS WERE LITIGATED AND BRIEFED ALLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE THE COMPLAINANT SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” FROM MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTIONS REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT, ASSAULT AND ROBBERY (SECOND DEPT).
Replevin and Order of Seizure (Asserting a Superior Right to Property) Explained
THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS; THE AFFIFAVITS WERE NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIAL FACT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WAS NOT “A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiffs Entitled to Return of Down Payment When Mortgage Application Denied, In Spite of Failure to Apply for “No Income Check” Mortgage
THE DIFFERING CRITERIA FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION, HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE AND NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAREFULLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO VACATION OF HIS CONVICTIONS ON THE GROUND THE COUNTS WHICH WERE DISMISSED AT TRIAL HAD A PREJUDICIAL “SPILL-OVER-EFFECT” ON THE REMAINING COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO AN ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE GUILTY PLEA ENTERED BY A NON-TESTIFYING PARTICIPANT IN THE SHOOTING (DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM); DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST THE ACCOMPLICE JURY INSTRUCTION (WHICH REQUIRES CORROBORATION OF THE ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY) OR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES... PLAINTIFF’S RECKLESS ACTIONS SEVERED ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN ANY ALLEGED...