You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY OWNER EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY OWNER EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SNOW-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in the context of a legal malpractice action, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the property owner created or exacerbated the dangerous condition by snow removal efforts. Plaintiff alleged she fell while stepping over a pile of snow:

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice on the ground that the plaintiff could not have prevailed in an action against the property owner. While the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, through certified meteorological data and the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that the accident occurred less than one hour after the snowstorm ceased, he did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the property owner created or exacerbated a hazardous condition through negligent snow removal efforts … . In particular, in light of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the property owner, upon clearing snow from a small portion of the premises, had left a pile of snow that the plaintiff had to “lift [her] leg” to “cross” over, causing her to slip and fall. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice cause of action should have been denied. Balan v Rooney, 2017 NY Slip Op 05801, 2nd Dept 7-26-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY OWNER EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SNOW-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY OWNER EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SNOW-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LEAVES ON A STAIRWAY CONSTITUTED AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.
Family Court Should Have Granted Father’s Motion to Vacate a Fact-Finding Order
THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE PROCEDURE USED WHEN PLAINTIFF DONATED BLOOD SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO DOCTOR WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCEDURE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3012-a WAS DUE TO THE GOOD FAITH BELIEF THE ACTION SOUNDED IN COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT AFFORDING PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Arbitration-Award Review Powers Explained
THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACT OF CLIMBING A FENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT FOR LOCKING PLAINTIFF INSIDE WORK SITE.

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

BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE... NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE...