You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT...

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NECESSARILY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case was properly denied. There was a conflict between the plaintiff’s description of the defect and the area where she fell (included in the deposition testimony submitted by the defendant) and the defendant’s evidence of the location of the defect:

In moving for summary judgment, the defendant was obligated to come forward with evidence establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by eliminating all material issues of fact as to its potential liability… . However, in view of the conflicting accounts submitted by the defendant as to the location of the defect which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall, the defendant failed to sustain its prima facie burden on the motion. Accordingly, denial of the motion was required, without regard to the adequacy of the plaintiff’s submissions in opposition … . Tavarez v Pistilli Assoc. III, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03727, Second Dept 5-23-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STAIRWAYS, PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NECESSARILY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (STAIRWAYS, PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NECESSARILY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/STAIRWAYS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NECESSARILY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PARTIAL PAYMENT OF A DEBT WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD MAY REVIVE OR TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON FATHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR; FATHER’S ATTORNEY EXPLAINED FATHER’S ABSENCE AND REQUESTED AN INQUEST; AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER ENTERED UPON A PARTY’S DEFAULT BRINGS UP FOR REVIEW ONLY THE CONTESTED MATTERS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT (SECOND DEPT).
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS REQUIRED; HERE THE BANK FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT SENT RPAPL 1304 NOTICES ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY TO DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Criteria for Downward Departure (SORA)​
MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT).
Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners
BECAUSE THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IS DEPENDENT UPON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH INFERENCES MUST BE DRAWN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS USUALLY NOT APPROPRIATE; HERE A GARAGE DOOR CLOSED OR FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

SMALL DEFECT THAT WAS UNDER THE HANDRAIL AND NOT IN THE WALKING SURFACE OF THE... PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE,...