You are here: / / EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL...

EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this parking-lot snow-ice slip and fall case was properly denied. Defendant’s submissions included evidence one of plaintiff’s employee had slipped and fallen on ice in the parking lot several hours before plaintiff fell. That evidence raised a question of fact whether defendant had constructive knowledge of the condition:

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . Although “an owner’s general awareness’ that a dangerous condition may exist is insufficient to support a finding that the owner had constructive notice of the specific condition that caused the plaintiff to slip and fall” … , evidence that another person had fallen in the “same general vicinity” a few hours before the plaintiff’s fall raises triable issues of fact whether the condition existed for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Inasmuch as defendant submitted evidence that its employee slipped in the same parking lot as plaintiff several hours before plaintiff’s fall and thereafter observed the icy condition as he rendered aid to plaintiff, there are triable issues of fact “whether the icy condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident to permit defendant[] to discover it and take corrective action’ ” … . Cosgrove v River Oaks Rests., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03286, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL,  EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Request for Petitioner’s Income Tax Records Properly Denied—Insufficient Showing the Desired Information Could Not Be Gained from Other Sources
ALTHOUGH A REVIEW OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS BY A PANEL OF SENIOR PROSECUTORS IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY DEMAND IS NOT PERMITTED, THE REMEDY FOR SUCH A REVIEW IS NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; RATHER THE MATTER IS REMITTED FOR A REVIEW OF THE RECORDS BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND A FINDING WHETHER THE PEOPLE EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE; IF NOT, DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT.
DEFENDANT DROVE ON THE RIGHT SHOULDER TO GO AROUND A VEHICLE THAT WAS TURNING AND THEN SUDDENLY CROSSED THE DOUBLE LINE AND STRUCK A MOTORCYCLIST IN THE ONCOMING LANE; THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE “RECKLESS” CONDUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MANSLAUGHTER STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).
ONLY ONE FINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WHERE TWO CONVICTIONS AROSE FROM THE SAME ACT.
A SHOOTER WEARING BODY ARMOR OPENED FIRE AT A BUFFALO GROCERY STORE KILLING TEN AND INJURING MANY OTHERS; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE BODY ARMOR ALLOWED THE SHOOTER TO KILL THE SECURITY GUARD WHICH LEFT THE SHOPPERS UNPROTECTED; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BODY ARMOR AND TWO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY MURDER, TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED PRIMARILY ON HIS CONFESSION; THE ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED MINIMAL INQUIRY WHEN DEFENDANT REQUESTED NEW COUNSEL; COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST THE REDACTION OF DEFENDANT’S VIDEO STATEMENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE FELONY MURDER AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS (FOURTH 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

PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON... RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS...