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
Defendant’s Unsigned Deposition Transcript Admissible In Support of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Okay to Submit Deposition Excerpts As Long As They Are Not Misleading
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CERTIFIED PLAINTIFFS AS A CLASS BASED ON THE FIVE MANDATORY FACTORS IN CPLR SECTIONS 901 AND 902; THE CLASS DEFINITION DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN IMPERMISSIBLE “FAIL SAFE” CLASS UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (FIRST DEPT).
Increasing Defendant’s Risk Level Based Upon His Mental Retardation Was an Abuse of Discretion
PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE.
PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS.
“Criminal Enterprise” Does Not Require Continuity of Criminal Participants
THE LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JOINED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT APPLICABLE.

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...