You are here: / / EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID...

EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department noted that evidence of general cleaning practices was not sufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the presence of liquid on the floor (the cause of plaintiff’s fall):

​

A defendant has constructive notice of a dangerous condition when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected… . Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the cafeteria supervisor, which only referred to general cleaning practices and did not establish when, prior to the subject accident, the area was last cleaned or inspected, failed to demonstrate that the alleged condition existed for an insufficient amount of time for it to have been remedied … . Valdes v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03794, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)

​

You might also like
DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ADMITTING LAW-FIRM BUSINESS RECORDS DID NOT INDICATE THE AFFIANT WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE RECORD KEEPING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE LAW FIRM; THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE RECORDS IN THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
FACT THAT DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR HAD BEEN ISSUED A PERMIT FOR DRILLING IN THE STREET DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR CREATED A DEFECT IN THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
A FORECLOSURE ACTION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DOES NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DOES NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold
PLAINTIFF IN THIS STRICT FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR REFORECLOSURE UNDER RPAPL 1503; REFORECLOSURE IS AN OPTION WHEN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE MAY BE VOID OR VOIDABLE AS AGAINST ANY PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY PULLED OUT OF A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT (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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE... WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST...