You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE...

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE HANDRAIL, WHICH WAS LOOSE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID BUT DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THE ALLEGEDLY LOOSE HANDRAIL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that defendants demonstrated they did not have notice of liquid on the stairs in this slip and fall case. But they did not meet their burden with respect to whether the handrail was loose:

Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a slippery liquid on the interior stairs of an apartment building … . Plaintiff testified that when she began to slip, she reached for the stairs' handrail, but it was loose, and she fell.

Defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that they neither created, nor had actual or constructive notice of, the alleged liquid on the stairway … . However, they failed to meet their burden with respect to plaintiff's alternative theory of liability, the allegedly defective handrail, given the superintendent's deposition testimony that he had previously repaired the handrail in the area where plaintiff fell by securing it with a clamp, but that one of the four screws needed to install the clamp was broken … . DeSuero v 1386 Assoc., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06810, First Dept 10-11-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE HANDRAIL, WHICH WAS LOOSE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID BUT DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THE ALLEGEDLY LOOSE HANDRAIL (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE HANDRAIL, WHICH WAS LOOSE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID BUT DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THE ALLEGEDLY LOOSE HANDRAIL (FIRST DEPT))/HANDRAILS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE HANDRAIL, WHICH WAS LOOSE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID BUT DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THE ALLEGEDLY LOOSE HANDRAIL (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE HANDRAIL, WHICH WAS LOOSE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID BUT DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THE ALLEGEDLY LOOSE HANDRAIL (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REQUEST FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE BORROWER WAS DECEASED; BECAUSE, UNDER THE FACTS, A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WAS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR FILING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, THE REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE DID NOT HOLD THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IN ABEYANCE AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING IN THE FLOOR WHEN THE PLYWOOD COVERING THE OPENING SHIFTED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES’ CHILD-MALTREATMENT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
MISSING CHAIR IN FRONT OF A SLOT MACHINE IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NONACTIONABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO SIT IN FRONT OF A MACHINE WHERE THERE WAS NO CHAIR (FIRST DEPT).
THE BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; THE APPEAL FROM AN ORDER WHICH WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A MOTION ON NOTICE MUST BE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
IF THE UNDERLYING INSURANCE POLICY DOES NOT INDICATE THAT A WRITTEN AGREEMENT NAMING A PARTY AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED MUST BE SIGNED, AN UNSIGNED DOCUMENT TO THAT EFFECT IS ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).
CONTRACT FOR INTERIOR DECORATOR SERVICES AND THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND ACCESSORIES WAS A SERVICE CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, NOT A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS GOVERNED BY THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

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

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK AND THE LOCATION OF AN UNPADDED... FIREFIGHTER’S RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE NEGLIGENCE SUIT BY A POLICE OFFICER...