You are here: / / MERCHANDISE RACK IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND...

MERCHANDISE RACK IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a merchandise rack in the aisle of defendant store was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:

[Plaintiff] commenced this action … to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell at the defendants’ department store in Yonkers, while attempting to walk past a merchandise rack situated in one of the aisles. …

“A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe manner”… . “However, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” … . Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including the decedent’s deposition testimony, demonstrating that the merchandise rack in the aisle was both open and obvious and that it was not inherently dangerous … . Nannariello v Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03689, Second Dept 5-23-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MERCHANDISE RACK IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MERCHANDISE RACK IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL,  MERCHANDISE RACK IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF STUDENT INJURED WHEN GYMNASIUM DOOR CLOSED ON HIS FINGER, INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR TORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATION THAT THE DOOR WAS DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
Once the Insurer Shows an Exclusion to Coverage Applies, the Burden is on the Insured to Demonstrate an Exception to the Exclusion Applies
MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE NEGLECT FINDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICY CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED OR FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE A MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK PROVED THE DE-ACCELERATION NOTICE WAS PROPERLY TRANSMITTED TO PLAINTIFF, RENDERING THE UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Seizure of Equipment Explained
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT ALERT CITY TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CLAIM IN... PLAINTIFF INJURED IN A SLAM DUNK COMPETITION AT BASKETBALL CAMP, DEFENDANT ENTITLED...