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
TENANT’S MOTHER HAD SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO A RENT STABILIZED APARTMENT PURSUANT TO THE RENT STABILIZATION CODE AND PUBLIC HOUSING LAW, NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL HAD MISINTERPRETED THE APPLICABLE CODE PROVISION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PLAINTIFF IN A PRIOR IDENTICAL ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND ORDERS; THE INSTANT ACTION IS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VILLAGE BOARD’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BECAUSE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS MADE; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONDITIONAL ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AN UNAUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL TO WHICH THE PARTIES STIPULATED WAS NOT CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Prior Written Notice Law Protects City from Liability for Dangerous Road Condition.
THE DEFENDANTS’ PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT SANTIAGO’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ICE ON THE DRIVEWAY AND SANTIAGO’S NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITIONER MADE NO EFFORT TO HELP MOTHER MAKE THE TRIAL DISCHARGE WORK (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ENTITLING THE DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (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...