You are here: / / THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE...
, ,

THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant property maintenance company’s motion for summary judgment in this ice slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff’s testimony about the thickness of the ice raised a question of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of it. The property owner’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract action against the property maintenance company was properly granted. In the contract, the property maintenance company agreed to purchase liability insurance, which it did not do. An agreement to purchase insurance is not the same as a promise to indemnify and an action on the agreement need not await a judgment in the slip and fall case:

… [T]he record … includes plaintiff’s testimony that there was no lighting in the sidewalk area and no witness was able to contradict her account that there was ice in the area at the time that she fell. Further, there was no proof that anyone had performed a routine inspection of the area after 7:00 a.m. on the day of her alleged fall, i.e., at any time within 10 hours of the fall, but also no proof that there had been further accumulation of snow after the snowfall the day before. … [I]t is clear that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with regard to whether defendant had constructive notice of any dangerous conditions… . The key question to be resolved by the trier of fact is whether, during this 10-hour lapse of time … there was further precipitation that created a dangerous or unsafe condition on the sidewalk and, if so, whether there was sufficient time for defendant[s] … “to reasonably have discovered and remedied it” … .Plaintiff’s description of the thickness and extent of ice on the sidewalk, if accepted, is relevant to the factual question of how long it was present and whether it was visible and apparent such that it would have been discovered upon routine inspection, with sufficient time to remedy it … . Calvitti v 40 Garden, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08241, Third Dept 11-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (SLIP AND FALL, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Defendant-Doctor in a Medical Malpractice Action May Be Questioned (by the Plaintiff) As an Expert About His Own Treatment of Plaintiff
​ THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE 40-MINUTE DETENTION, THE CALLING OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE OFFICER, AND THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR BY THE PAROLE OFFICER, WERE VALID; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FURTHER DETENTION AROSE ONLY AFTER THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LIMITED DETENTION BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD DISSIPATED (THIRD DEPT). ​
No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility Tax” Because It Does Not Receive as Much Transit Service as Other Counties Paying the Same Amount
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ORDERING THE RELEASE OF A PRISONER BECAUSE OF THE RISK POSED BY COVID-19 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PETITION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PRISON OFFICIALS WERE DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO THE RISK (THIRD DEPT).
LIMOUSINE DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict
CLAIMANT ACTOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD 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

TRANSMISSION REPAIR COMPANY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AS A THIRD... STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED...