You are here: / / PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S...

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted because the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her staircase fall. The allegation that the staircase lacked a handrail in violation of the building code did not raise a question of fact:

In support of its motion, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . The plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that the absence of a handrail on the side of the stairs where she fell constituted a building code violation was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion. Morchyk v Acadia 3780-3858 Nostrand Ave., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01302, Second Dept 2-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STAIRS, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( STAIRS, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STAIRS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Expert Evidence to Explain an Adolescent’s Reactions to Sexual Abuse Properly Admitted
ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IMPOSES A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALKS SAFE ON ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE STRICT LIABILITY, DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SIDEWALK ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether County Had Constructive Notice of Pothole Which Injured Bicyclist
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN BRICKWORK PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE JUDGE PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER DOCTORS WHO CONSULTED ON PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY FAILING TO DO FURTHER DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; IF SO, FAULT WOULD BE SHARED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1601 (SECOND DEPT).
Implied Definite Term of Duration
DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLIED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO...