You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF A JAGGED EDGE ON A DOOR WHICH...

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).

The First Department determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this “injury from a door” case was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged her foot was injured by a jagged edge at the bottom of a door. There had been no complaints about the door or any other injuries caused by the door. The defendants demonstrated that the door was inspected upon installation in 2008, no jagged edge was observed, and the door opened and closed properly:

Defendants established prima facie that they neither created nor had notice of the defect in the door … . They submitted evidence that an outside contractor installed the door in 2008, that defendant Art Farm’s manager inspected it at that time and saw no jagged edge or other visible defect, and tested it to ensure that it opened and closed properly, and that, before plaintiff’s accident, there had been no reports of difficulties with the door or complaints of injuries.

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to defendants’ creation or notice of the defect. There is no evidence that anyone ever saw or reported the door’s sharp, jagged bottom edge until after plaintiff’s accident, and therefore no evidence that the defect existed long enough for defendants to discover and remedy it … . Nor does the affidavit by plaintiff’s expert engineer raise any issues of fact. The engineer offered no opinion about the alleged jagged edge, which did not exist at the time of his inspection of the door nearly three years after the accident. Samuels v Lee, 018 NY Slip Op 02716, First Dept 4-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (NOTICE OF DEFECT, 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))/NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF DEFECT, 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))/DOORS (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF DEFECT, 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))

You might also like
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ORAL CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE EVEN IF THE TRIGGERING EVENT OCCURRED AFTER A YEAR, THE CONTRACT WAS WITHIN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AND THEREFORE MUST IN BE WRITING (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.
THE BUILDING OWNER HAD, BY CONTRACT, RELINQUISHED ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE TO DEFENDANT AMERICAN ELEVATOR AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION; THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INNER GATE CLOSED ON HER SHOULDER, PINNING HER, AND THE ELEVATOR THEN DESCENDED; A QUESTION OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE WAS RAISED (FIRST DEPT). ​
WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS IN A COMPLAINT IS NOT CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; HERE THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LEARN AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THEIR CASE IN DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF STATUTORY IMMUNITY WAS NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN CPLR 510(3) WERE NOT MET; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Further Proceedings Are Stayed When Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Is Granted
NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS REQUIRING A SHUTDOWN AND REOPENING RESTRICTIONS DID NOT TERMINATE PLAINTIFF RETAIL STORE’S LEASE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE DOCTRINES OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND IMPOSSIBILITY DO NOT APPLY (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER...