You are here: / / SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION...
,

SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant school district's motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The evidence demonstrated 19 inches of snow had fallen in the days preceding the slip and fall and the school district did not demonstrate the nature of the snow and ice removal efforts it made. The Second Department noted Supreme Court should not have considered the inadequate-lighting allegation because it was not in the notice of claim or the amended bill of particulars:

In support of its motion, the district submitted a certified weather report, which demonstrated that there was a snowstorm on February 13, 2014, resulting in a snow/ice accumulation of 11.8 inches, a snowstorm on February 14, 2014, with an additional snow/ice accumulation of 9.2 inches, and another inch of snow falling on February 15, 2014, followed by trace amounts on February 16, 2014, culminating in a snow/ice cover totaling 19 inches on the date of the accident. Moreover, the [*2]affidavits of the district's director of facilities and operations and middle school principal failed to provide any information about the district's snow and ice removal practices, or what was done to remove snow and ice from the premises prior to the accident, except to state generally that a facilities and operations staff member finished “all maintenance efforts” at the middle school by 2:59 p.m. on the date of the accident … .  Pickles v Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05787, Second Dept 8-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Requirements for Prima Facie Case Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained (Re: Existence of Hazardous Condition)
THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE FALL TO THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL; THERE WAS NO STATUTE OR CODE PROVISION, AND NO COMMON LAW DUTY, REQUIRING TWO HANDRAILS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT ADMISSIBLE AS ADMISSIONS OR BUSINESS RECORDS; THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, PETITION ALLEGING UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Youthful Offender Privilege Explained/Privilege Not Waived By Denial of the Act Which Was the Subject of the Youthful Offender Adjudication in Subsequent Civil Suit
Loan to Grandson Was Not Made In Anticipation of the Need to Qualify for Medical Assistance
Defendant Was Apparently Erroneously Sentenced to Five Years When the Correct Sentence Was 15 Years—Pursuant to a Resettlement of the Sentencing Transcript Two Months After Defendant’s Release, He Was Resentenced to 15 Years—Because Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Finality Re: the Five-Year Sentence, the Resentence Violated the Double Jeopardy Clause
THE GOVERNOR’S COVID-19-RELATED REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGNATING-PETITION SIGNATURES UNDER THE ELECTION LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGNATING-PETITION SIGNATURES UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF... TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY RESCINDED A 1987 NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR...