You are here: / / PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE...
,

PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store’s (Me-Me’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted and plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference charge because a video of the fall had been negligently LOST. Plaintiff alleged she stepped on a grape. Defendant did not demonstrate a lack of notice by submitting evidence of its general cleaning practices:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence”… . To provide constructive notice, “a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . “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” … . “Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … . * * *

​

Since Me-Me’s loss of the video recording was negligent rather than intentional, and the loss of the recording does not completely deprive the plaintiff of the ability to prove her case, the appropriate sanction is to direct that an adverse inference charge be given at trial with respect to the unavailable recording … . Eksarko v Associated Supermarket, 2017 NY Slip Op 07975, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT)/SPOLIATION (SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO,  PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/VIDEO (SLIP AND FALL, SPOLIATION,  PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
AN ENTRY IN A HOSPITAL RECORD INDICATING PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN A FEW STAIRS WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT OR DIAGNOSIS AND WAS NOT AN ADMISSION BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF THE ENTRY WAS UNKNOWN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROOF REQUIRED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FOR BOTH PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS, IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, ON WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE PROVISIONS, EXPLAINED; PRIOR DECISIONS HOLDING THAT A DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE WAS SUFFICIENT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT TO HIS MOTHER, ON THE PHONE, ABOUT NEEDING THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECT A TYPO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (LABOR LAW 241 AND 241(B) RATHER THAN 240(1)); SUMMARY JUDGMENT CAN BE GRANTED ON AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION; HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FOUR-INCH ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WAS DE MINIMIS (SECOND DEPT).
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW.
DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) WHICH IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; DEFENDANT’S ONE-YEAR SENTENCE, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN SERVED, WAS REDUCED BY ONE DAY IN PART TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF A ONE-YEAR SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MRNACAJ GESTURED THAT SALIAN COULD PULL OUT OF A DRIVEWAY INTO MRNACAJ’S LANE, MRNACAJ COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT SALIAN WOULD CONTINUE INTO THE OTHER LANE WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK, MRNACAJ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD 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

BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR... EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME...