You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LOCATION OF THE DOORWAY AND THE STAIRWAY PILLAR,...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LOCATION OF THE DOORWAY AND THE STAIRWAY PILLAR, WHICH WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, WAS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant property-owner's motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although the pillar of an exterior stairway (which allegedly caused plaintiff to trip) was open and obvious, there was a question of fact whether the location of the pillar and the exit door created an inherently dangerous condition:

The accident occurred after the injured plaintiff exited the building through a door located next to an opening between the door and the railing. The opening was at the top of the staircase and provided access to the steps descending from the landing. According to the injured plaintiff, the opening was less than two feet wide. When the door was completely open, it blocked the opening leading to the stairs. The injured plaintiff testified at her deposition that she was attempting to reach the opening to access the steps when her left foot hit the pillar of the railing, causing her to fall. * * *

… [t]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers … . Contrary to the defendant's contention, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the metal railing, which was open and obvious, was not inherently dangerous given its location within the accident site … . The defendant also failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . Dudnik v 1055 Hylan Offs., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05914, Second Dept 8-29-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LOCATION OF THE DOORWAY AND THE STAIRWAY PILLAR, WHICH WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, WAS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LOCATION OF THE DOORWAY AND THE STAIRWAY PILLAR, WHICH WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, WAS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE LABOR-LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RESULT OF THE PRIOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION HEARING UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED (SECOND DEPT).
Money Available to Father from Relatives for Children’s College Expenses Should Have Been Considered in Allocating those Expenses between Mother and Father
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MOST (BUT NOT ALL) OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200, COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND INDEMNIFICATION ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INVOLVING A MAKESHIFT PLATFORM PLAINTIFF WAS USING TO INSTALL SPRINKLERS; THE DECISION HAS GOOD SUMMARIES OF THE ELEMENTS OF ALL OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S AFFIDAVIT, WHICH WAS BASED SOLELY UPON READING THE COMPLAINT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS GIVEN TOO MUCH MORPHINE, WAS SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER, WHO LIVED IN FLORIDA, BROUGHT THIS PARENTAL ACCESS PETITION; FATHER INDICATED HE COULD NOT AFFORD TO TRAVEL TO NEW YORK; HE APPEARED SEVERAL TIMES VIRTUALLY; HE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE LAST COURT DATE, BUT HIS ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners
ALLEGATION THAT FIREFIGHTERS TOLD PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED AND IT WAS SAFE TO REENTER WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FIREFIGHTERS TURNED OFF THE WATER AND LEFT, AFTER WHICH THE BUILDING BURNED TO THE GROUND (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

FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE GENDER OF THE CANDIDATE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE DESIGNATING... ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN BRICKWORK PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN...