You are here: / / NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL...

NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants demonstrated they did not own, occupy or control the area where plaintiff slipped and fell. Therefore the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiff:

“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty owed by a defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and that such breach was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff” … . Where there is no duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, there can be no breach, and thus, no liability can be imposed upon the defendant … . Liability for a dangerous condition on property is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property… . The existence of one or more of these elements is sufficient to give rise to a duty of care… . Where none is present, “[generally] a party cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the allegedly defective condition” … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a duty to the plaintiff by demonstrating that they did not own, occupy, or control the area where the subject accident occurred, and thus, that they did not have a duty to maintain the staircase on the date of the accident. Donatien v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06061, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT))/DUTY OF CARE (SLIP AND FALL, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS’ ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “UNDUE INFLUENCE” OBJECTION TO PROBATE OF A WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
BED OF A PICKUP TRUCK IS A PROPER PLATFORM WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, PLAINTIFF’S RIDING ON THE BED OF THE PICKUP WHILE DOING DEMOLITION WORK, THEREFORE, DID NOT VIOLATE THE INDUSTRIAL CODE.
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO INITIALLY DISCLOSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST ENTITLED TO EXAMINE TRUSTEE ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST, BUT NOT APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEE.
THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH ALLOWED THE SEIZURE OF BUSINESS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER FILES AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS WITH ONLY A DATE-RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO A GENERAL WARRANT, THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR STANDING TO EXAMINE 353 BALLOTS CAST IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION FOR QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS WON BY ONLY 55 VOTES (SECOND DEPT).
THE LANGUAGE OF THE EASEMENT CREATED AN AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER THE EASEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED TO ACCESS A PUBLIC ROAD; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD... DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION...