You are here: / / PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN CHAIR IN CUSTODIAN’S BREAK ROOM COLLAPSED,...

PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN CHAIR IN CUSTODIAN’S BREAK ROOM COLLAPSED, SCHOOL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE CHAIR WAS DEEMED NOT TO BE IN THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the school district was not liable for injuries to a subcontractor working at a school. A chair in the custodian's break room collapsed when plaintiff was sitting in it. The school demonstrated a lack of notice of the dangerous condition and the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply because the school was deemed not to have exclusive control over the chair:

The School District established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing that it did not have actual or constructive notice of any defect in the chair … . Since the plaintiff presented only unsubstantiated hearsay in opposition to the School District's motion, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable, because one of the required factors for the doctrine to apply—that the instrumentality of the injury was in the exclusive control of the School District— cannot be established. The chair was located in the custodian break room accessible to third-party contractors of the School District, giving numerous people access to it … . Brennan v Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05745, Second Dept 8-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN CHAIR IN CUSTODIAN'S BREAK ROOM COLLAPSED, SCHOOL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE CHAIR WAS DEEMED NOT TO BE IN THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (SECOND DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN CHAIR IN CUSTODIAN'S BREAK ROOM COLLAPSED, SCHOOL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE CHAIR WAS DEEMED NOT TO BE IN THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
WET AND MUDDY CONDITION OF A FIELD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT).
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ODOR AND OBSERVATION OF MARIJUANA; SEIZURE OF A TRANSPARENT BAG OF PILLS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THE PILLS WERE CONTRABAND AND THERE WAS NO MARIJUANA IN THE BAG (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEYS FOR THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE IN A REMOVAL PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BASED UPON THEIR PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF DECEDENT’S WIFE FOR HER ESTATE PLANNING (SECOND DEPT).
Application for Area Variance Properly Denied—Analytical Criteria Described
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 13O4 AND A CONDITION PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, WHO ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS POLICES OFFICERS, AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED BY BOTH POLICE OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; NEITHER THE SEARCH WARRANT NOR THE SEARCH WAS THEREBY RENDERED INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HIS ATTORNEY DIDN’T REQUEST THE SEARCH WARRANT DOCUMENTS, DIDN’T MAKE A SUPPRESSION MOTION, AND DIDN’T INFORM HIM THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS COULD BE CONTESTED (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

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE... DESPITE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXPERT, AFFIDAVIT FROM EXPERT PROPERLY CONSIDERED...