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
PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL.
THE COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN A FELONY; THE LENGTH OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT AFFECTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE BANK (SECOND DEPT).
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.
BECAUSE MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED MOTHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT; FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ADMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY MOTHER’S ATTORNEY DEPRIVED MOTHER OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WHICH MET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE AND MAILING CRITERIA REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER ON FATHER OR FATHER’S COUNSEL, THE TIME FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER NEVER BEGAN RUNNING (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CONVICTION FOR GRAND LARCENY BY FALSE REPRESENTATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED ADDITIONAL FUNDS AFTER MAKING THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION AND NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS AT THE TIME THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE (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

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...