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
JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BY ASKING QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES AND INTERRUPTING CROSS-EXAMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND HAD ONLY SEEN THE ABUSED CHILD TWO OR THREE TIMES SHE WAS DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
EXCEPTION TO FINALITY RULE WHERE IT IS CLEAR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE FUTILE; DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A VIOLATION-OF-DUE-PROCESS CAUSE OF ACTION.
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, INSTEAD THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED AS ‘PREMATURE,’ MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
Conviction for Possession With Intent to Sell Against Weight of Evidence​
DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT).
OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT).
COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 BECAUSE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WAS NOT WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUSION OF FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS APPROPRIATE (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...