You are here: / / RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST...

RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant restaurant (Carrabba’s) was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The restaurant did not demonstrate when the area had last been cleaned or inspected:

​

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 … . In this case, Carrabba’s failed to satisfy its initial burden on this issue. The deposition testimony of Carrabba’s manager and cleaning employee referred to Carrabba’s general daily cleaning practices. Both deponents testified that they did not remember any specific cleaning or inspection of the area of the plaintiff’s fall on the date of the accident, thereby failing to make out a prima facie showing of lack of constructive notice. Lombardo v Kimco Cent. Islip Venture, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06531, 2nd Dept 9-20-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Primary Assumption of Risk Precluded Lawsuit
Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the Parties Laid Bare Their Proof and Supreme Court Properly Treated the Motion as One for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 3212 Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint as Time-Barred
THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
​ A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION NO LONGER STOPS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT.
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL.
No-Fault Carriers Not Required to Pay “Facility Fees” for “Office-Based” Surgery

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

PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE... RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD...