You are here: / / DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER...

DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store was not entitled to summary judgment in this tracked-in-water slip and fall case. The slip and fall was in the “card isle” of the store, not at the entrance. The court explained that proof of general cleaning practices, as opposed to when the area was last cleaned or inspected, will not support summary judgment:

​

While a defendant is not required to cover all of its floors with mats, or to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain … , a defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action … . …

​

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, including transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and of the manager of the store at the time of the accident, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. The store manager stated that the store, which was open 24 hours a day, did not have set times when inspections were conducted, and that he did not know the last time that the card aisle had been inspected prior to the incident or what it looked like within a reasonable time prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall was not visible and apparent and that it had not been there for a sufficient period of time for the defendants to have discovered and remedied it … . Hickson v Walgreen Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04103, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)/WATER, TRACKED IN (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE BROKER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS ENTITLED TO A BROKERAGE FEE; THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT EXPIRED BY ITS OWN TERMS BEFORE THE LEASE TOOK EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY’S “CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION” DID NOT INCLUDE SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT THE ATTORNEY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THE TRANSLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).
“Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined
Conflicting Evidence About Whether Attorney Discharged for Cause (Thereby Prohibiting Recovery of Attorneys Fees) Required Hearing
CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATE FINANCE LAW AND WAS NOT VALID UNTIL APPROVED BY THE STATE COMPTROLLER, NO RECOVERY FOR DELAYS IN THE PERIOD BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS APPROVED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO THE TIME FOR ANSWERING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF...