You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S...

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an issue of fact whether the defendant property owner had constructive notice of inconsistently worn and slippery steps precluded the award of summary judgment to the defendant. The First Department also found that the cause of the fall was sufficiently identified by plaintiff’s expert opinion, despite the difficulty in discerning the defect from the photographs:

Plaintiff identified the cause of his fall on stairs in a building owned and managed by defendants sufficiently to withstand summary judgment. He was not required to identify at the time of the accident “exactly where [he] fell and the precise condition that caused [him] to fall” … . He identified the location of his fall at his deposition. Plaintiff also explained that it was the “concave” shape of the steps that caused him to slip. This testimony was corroborated by plaintiff’s expert, who opined that the stairs were dangerously slippery and were disproportionately worn in the middle, creating an unsafe “inward sloping condition” … . Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion was properly considered, although it was not timely disclosed, since there was no showing of prejudice to defendants … .

Plaintiff’s evidence of the cause of his fall is also sufficient to raise issues of fact as to the existence of a defective condition. While it is difficult to discern a concave or sloping condition in the photographs in the record, the photographs are not sufficiently clear to be conclusive.

The record also presents issues of fact as to defendants’ notice of the alleged defects. Inconsistently worn and slippery steps are not latent defects and do not appear overnight. In addition, defendants submitted evidence showing that they had an opportunity to observe the defects. The building superintendent informally inspected the stairs at least three times a week during cleaning. Thus, if the defects are found to exist, it will be reasonable to infer that defendants had constructive notice of them … . Johnson v 675 Coster St. Hous. Dev. Fund, 2018 NY Slip Op 03756, First Dept 5-24-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/ CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRWAY (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE PRECLUDED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEY FAILED TO PROVE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO REMEDY THE WET FLOOR, AND THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
Doctrine of Continuous Representation/Retainer Agreement in Estate Proceeding “Unconscionable”​
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).
THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY WHEN ENGAGED IN THE PROPRIETARY FUNCTION OF MAINTAINING ROADS; IN THE ABSENCE OF A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE RISKS OF A HIGHWAY DESIGN, THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE CITY BUILDING CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DISABLED-ACCESS TO THE THIRD FLOOR OF DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT CONFLICT WITH THE FACT THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MAY REQUIRE SUCH ACCESS (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE NONPARTY WITNESS, WHO WAS PLAINTIFF’S ASSAILANT, HAD A COMMON NAME AND WAS HOMELESS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WITNESS’S DATE OF BIRTH AS AN AID IN LOCATING HIM; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE WITNESS’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER HOWEVER (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, LADDER KICKED OUT FROM UNDER HIM.
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (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

CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED... DATE OF WOMAN’S DISAPPEARANCE, NOT THE STATUTORY DEFAULT DATE FIVE YEARS...