You are here: / / DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA...

DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court determined defendants did not demonstrate when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell had last been inspected or cleaned and did not demonstrate the handrail was not defective:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous conditions. While the deposition testimony of the premises’ porter and an affidavit of its superintendent, submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, demonstrated that the porter and the superintendent inspected and cleaned the premises on a regular basis, the defendants failed to present evidence of when the specific area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected before the accident … . Quinones v Starret City, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05510, Second Dept 7-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Motions for Findings Allowing Child to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Should Have Been Granted
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.
ONLY A CLOSE RELATIVE COULD SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER SIXTEEN TO SUPPORT THE AGE-ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; HERE APPELLANT’S COUSIN’S ALLEGATION APPELLANT WAS FOURTEEN WAS INSUFFICIENT.
PLAINTIFF BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR; DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
Accelerated Relief Pursuant to CPLR 3213 (Judgment In Lieu of Complaint) Should Not Have Been Granted—the Document at Issue Did Not Include a Promise to Pay On Demand or at a Definite Time
​ IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO DISMSS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Sufficiently Alleged a Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment—an Action Which Only Applies in the Absence of an Express Agreement

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

ERROR FOR JUDGE TO EFFECTIVELY IGNORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN A JURY NOTE AND... DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION...