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
IN THIS AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION CASE, TESTIMONY THAT NOTICE OF THE REVOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS MAILED TO HIM VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT BASED UPON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A JURY NOTE WHICH REQUIRES NO ACTION BY THE COURT NEED NOT BE SHARED WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
A POLICE OFFICER DIRECTING TRAFFIC IS PERFORMING A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION REQUIRING THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION; THE OFFICER AND THE CITY ARE THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM LIABLITY FOR A RELATED ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED.
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD WAS 17 AND HAD A LONG STANDING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO DETERMINE PATERNITY; THE CHILD WAS AWARE FROM A YOUNG AGE THAT THE PUTATIVE FATHER WAS THE CHILD’S BIOLOGICAL FATHER AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE PATERNITY PETITION WAS NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (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

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