You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS,...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff (Ebner) alleged she did not see the single step down which caused her to fall. The Second Department found that defendant did not prove the step was open and obvious. The handrail was not demonstrated to be a sufficient visual cue:

​

Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted, among other things, Ebner’s deposition testimony, deposition testimony of certain of the defendant’s employees, and an expert affidavit. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, Ebner identified the cause of her fall as her inability to see the single step on the walkway she was traversing … . The defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the step constituted a dangerous condition or whether the subject step was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law … . The affidavit of the defendant’s expert failed to establish, as a matter of law, that a handrail that the defendant contends was adjacent to the walkway on the date of the subject accident provided a sufficient visual cue to alert pedestrians to the presence of the step. Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, it failed to demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition prior to the subject accident … . Ross v Bretton Woods Home Owners Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04482, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL ( DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT FINDING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AWARDING NO DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING OR FUTURE LOST WAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER CHILD WAS INJURED IN UTERO (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHILDREN’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE FATHER LEGALLY POSSESSED A FIREARM DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING; THE EVIDENTIARY CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT ARE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
Causes of Action Against City Alleging Negligence In Responding to a 911 Call and In Preparing for and Responding to a Snow Storm Which Blocked Roads Should Have Been Dismissed—Only Governmental Functions Were Involved and there Was No Special Relationship between the City and Plaintiffs’ Decedent
Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary and Menacing Statutes; Court Must Articulate Specific Reasons for Shackling Defendant During Trial
LOCAL LAWS GOVERNING USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARNG ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS MURDER CONVICTION ON THE GROUND OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE (SECOND DEPT).
DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS.

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

AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE... THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO...