You are here: / / STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL...

STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant retail store’s (Macy’s) motion for summary judgment in this escalator slip and fall case should have been granted. Proof that the escalator was regularly maintained and inspected and there were no reports of accidents or problems warranted summary judgment and the plaintiff’s claims that the escalator was wet and the rubber handrail pulled up did not raise a question of fact:

Macy’s submitted, inter alia, deposition testimony of two of its employees, as well as the records of maintenance and inspections of the escalator by defendant Thyssenkrupp Corp. and the New York City Department of Buildings. Such evidence showed that the escalator was regularly maintained and inspected during the years prior to plaintiff’s accident, and there were never any reports of accidents or other problems with the escalator… .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable of fact. Plaintiff’s wife’s hearsay statement that the stairs were wet does not indicate that they were wet long enough for Macy’s to have notice of the condition. Similarly, plaintiff’s testimony that the rubber handrail pulled up when he grasped at it as he slipped, does not raise an issue of fact that any such defect existed long enough for Macy’s to have notice, particularly since there were no prior complaints and in light of the evidence of regular maintenance and City inspections showing no problems .. . Furthermore, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert engineer that the wooden escalator treads were more slippery than industry safety standards permit does not raise an issue of fact. Ahmed v Macy’s Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03231, First Dept 5-3-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ESCALATORS, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))/ESCALATORS (SLIP AND FALL,  STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY AND POLICE UNDER 42 USC 1983 ALLEGING THE CITY AND POLICE HAD AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR PRACTICE ALLOWING POLICE OFFICERS TO FILE FALSE CHARGES, TESTIFY FALSELY AND FALSIFY EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO RECORDS OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS OR INVESTIGATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CPLR DISCOVERY PROVISIONS AND WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO A FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LOWER 5.76% INTEREST RATE ON THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY IMPOSED THE 9% INTEREST RATE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5004 (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ON LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
Denial of “For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Said They Needed to Hear “Both Sides of the Story” Required Reversal
DESPITE PROBATE OF WILL IN FLORIDA, DECEDENT WAS A DOMICILIARY OF NEW YORK, ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK INAPPROPRIATE, NONANCILLARY LETTERS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).
ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY.
DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE NO-FAULT EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) REQUESTED BY THE INSURER JUSTIFIED THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS (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

INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM... PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER...