You are here: / / DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...
,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant demonstrated the absence of actual or constructive notice of the allegedly slippery condition on the staircase in this slip and fall case:

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the urine on the staircase that allegedly caused plaintiff to fall. Defendant submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of its caretaker, who averred that it was his practice to inspect the staircase at issue twice each day, in the morning and at around 3:30 p.m., and to mop up any urine or other wet or slippery condition that he observed. He also stated that it was his practice to complete a checklist with regard to his morning inspection, and he attached and identified a copy of the checklist that he had completed as to the morning inspection on July 2, 2012, the day before plaintiff’s fall. In addition, he specifically stated that no one had complained to him about urine in a stairwell between his afternoon inspection on July 2 and the time his shift ended… .

Plaintiff’s opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence she submitted failed to demonstrate a recurring dangerous condition routinely left unaddressed by defendant, as opposed to a mere general awareness of such a condition, for which defendant is not liable … . Canteen v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 05733, First Dept 8-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (NOTICE, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
LAND HELD BY A MUNICIPALITY IN A PROPRIETARY CAPACITY IS NOT IMMUNE FROM ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION PAPERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CITY ALLOWED THE LOT TO BE USED FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS BUT NEVER UNEQUIVOCALLY DEDICATED THE LOT AS PARKLAND, THEREFORE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AND THE CITY CAN DEVELOP THE LAND (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Modification of Existing Visitation Arrangement
Warrantless Entry Into Defendant’s Backyard Constituted a Search/Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in His Backyard
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT DESIGN, WHICH HAD A UNITY OF INTEREST WITH DEFENDANT EISENBACH, DESIGN’S CEO; THE PLAINTIFF HAD AGREED TO DISCONTINUE THE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST EISENBACH BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON EISENBACH’S BEHALF (SECOND DEPT).
PURPORTED WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL NOT VALID, NOTHING ON THE RECORD.

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

LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241...