You are here: / / PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE...

PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the long-time existence of the sidewalk defect could be inferred from the photograph. Defendants were therefore not able to show the absence of constructive notice and defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted:

​

Owner defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the defect in the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall … . A jury could infer from plaintiff’s photograph of the defective condition that the condition existed for a sufficient length of time for owner defendants to have discovered it and had time to repair it … .

In opposition, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether the defect was actionable and not trivial. A photograph of the sidewalk at the time of plaintiff’s accident showed the condition of the sidewalk to be well-worn, with cracks between the slabs, and the defect shown in close-up appeared to be capable of causing plaintiff to trip and fall … . Flanders v Sedgwick Ave. Assoc., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08718, First Dept 12-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
WHEN A COURT DECIDES AN ACTION BROUGHT AS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS A PLENARY ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT IN THE WRONG FORM; THE PETITION SOULD BE DEEMED A COMPLAINT, NOT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS CLASS-ACTION-CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF PAY RATE AND PAY DAY AS REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW SECTION 195(1), THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED CERTIFICATION FOR THE CLAIM FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE REQUEST FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS OF CLASS MEMBERS WHOSE CLASS-ACTION NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS UNDELIVERABLE (FIRST DEPT).
Preliminary Injunction Should Not Have Been Granted—Petitioners Did Not Show a Likelihood of Success on the Merits
TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN NOT LETTING THE POSSESSION-OF-A-BB-GUN COUNT GO TO THE JURY BECAUSE THE COUNT COULD CONFUSE THE JURY AND LEAD TO A COMPROMISE VERDICT, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A 9 MM HANDGUN. 
DEFENDANT, A MEMBER OF THE PROUD BOYS, WAS CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT OF A MEMBER OF ANTIFA; A BOOT IS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE PROUD BOYS AND ANTIFA PROPERLY ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT).
Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds” Endorsement Was Triggered—The Endorsement Covered Acts or Omissions by the Insured Which “Caused” the Underlying Injury Without Any Requirement that the “Cause” Entail Negligence—Here the Insured Was Not Negligent, but the Injury Was “Caused” by Insured’s Non-Negligent Acts—Therefore the Additional Insureds Were Covered Under the Policy
THE SEARCH WAS NOT INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THE SUPPRESSION COURT RULED, CASE REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATE GROUND FOR A VALID SEARCH WHICH WAS ARGUED BUT NOT RULED UPON BELOW. ​

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

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK... UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED...