You are here: / / BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS...

BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the building owners’ (Realty defendants’) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The defendants did not eliminate questions of fact whether they had notice of or created the dangerous condition, a wet floor in the area where floor mats had been removed while a tenant was moving in:

​

According to the Realty defendants’ deposition testimony, the floor in the building lobby was scheduled to be wet mopped on the Friday afternoon prior to the plaintiff’s accident on Monday, and the Realty defendants’ maintenance personnel were instructed, as part of their process, to remove the floor mats in the lobby and put them back in place after the floor was mopped dry.

…”To impose liability on a defendant for a slip and fall on an alleged dangerous condition on a floor, there must be evidence that the dangerous condition existed, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time” … .

A defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it … .

​

Here, the Realty defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the alleged accumulation of water on which the plaintiff slipped and fell was created by its maintenance personnel prior to the accident… . Dow v Hermes Realty, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07974, Fourth Dept 11-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HER FOOT BECAME ENTANGLED IN CORDS OR TUBES CONNECTED TO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT IN A HOSPITAL ROOM; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CORDS OR TUBES WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
A PERSON ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CAN REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CHARGES, THE POLICE INVESTIGATION, THE PLEA AND THE ADJUDICATION, BUT CANNOT REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNDERLYING FACTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE WRONG MAILING DATE IN AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE CANNOT BE CORRECTED IN AN AMENDED AFFIDAVIT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF CAME TO A SUDDEN STOP IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S LIABILITY; HOWEVER A QUESTION OF FACT REMAINED CONCERNING DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (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

OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION... PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS...