You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant in this slip and fall case. The defendant did not demonstrate when the area of the fall was last cleaned or inspected. Therefore no prima facie case was made out. Reliance on gaps in plaintiffs’ case is not enough in the summary-judgment context.

In this slip and fall action, defendant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment by merely pointing to perceived gaps in plaintiffs’ case … . Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when plaintiff fell … . Vargas v Riverbay Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00520, First Dept 1-30-18

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF A JAGGED EDGE ON A DOOR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS WAS PROPERLY NOT APPLIED, DOLLAR-AMOUNT OF THE FEE AT ISSUE COULD BE DETERMINED BY INDUSTRY PRACTICE.
SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63.
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, DEFENDANT ALLEGED COUNSEL’S ADVICE ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS ERRONEOUS 1ST DEPT.
A PLAINTIFF CAN USE THE SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS CLAUSE” IN CPLR 205(A) MORE THAN ONCE; WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN APPEAL OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD DOESN’T START TO RUN UNTIL 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY (FIRST DEPT). ​
VERDICT FINDING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT BUT HER NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURY WAS INCONSISTENT AND AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS.
REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM MOTHER’S CARE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN (FIRST 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

NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD... INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF...