You are here: / / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST...

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THE WETNESS ON WHICH SHE SLIPPED AND FELL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR, THEREFORE THE LANDLORD HAD NEITHER ACTUAL NOR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff’s deposition testimony demonstrated that the wetness on the stairs could not have been present for more than an hour. Therefore the defendant landlord had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition and the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted:

The building superintendent testified that he had no knowledge of the condition and received no complaints about it on the day of the accident. On the issue of constructive notice, although he described a reasonable cleaning and inspection routine… , there was no evidence when the stairs were last inspected or cleaned before plaintiff’s accident so as to satisfy defendant’s burden … .

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony offered in support of defendant’s motion, however, established that the water condition did not exist for a sufficient period of time to discover and remedy the problem … . Thus, there was neither actual nor constructive notice of the wetness. Although plaintiff testified that she had complained about a wet condition on the stairs on three occasions between 2009 and 2013, she presented no evidence of a recurring condition unaddressed by defendants. Plaintiff also testified that she had no reason to believe that the stair was wet when she left her apartment at 5 p.m. and that she slipped on the stairs when she returned, less than an hour later. Thus, any wet condition was present for less than an hour, and might have been there only minutes or seconds before plaintiff slipped on it …. Plaintiff failed to raise any issue of fact requiring a trial.

Plaintiff’s argument that the absence of a handrail on both sides of the staircase raises an issue of fact as to defendants’ negligence is speculative, as there is no evidence that the absence of a handrail played any role in her accident … . Perez v River Park Bronx Apts., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00196, First Dept 1-10-19

 

You might also like
IN A RARE REVERSAL OF A BENCH TRIAL ON EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, THE 1ST DEPT DETERMINED FOUR OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE “EXCITED UTTERANCE” OR “PROMPT OUTCRY” THEORIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT ONLY THE FACT OF THE COMPLAINT, NOT THE ACCOMPANYING DETAILS, ARE ADMISSIBLE AS A “PROMPT OUTCRY” (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE FAILURE OF SHRINK WRAP USED TO SECURE BOXES, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED MOVING THE LOOSE BOXES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SATISFY A NON-MATERIAL CONDITION PRECEDENT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE EXCESS CARRIER OF A CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFF ROUTINELY NOTIFIED DEFENDANT BROKER OF ANY CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT BROKER ROUTINELY NOTIFIED THE AFFECTED CARRIERS, GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO DO SO (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT WAS NEVER PROPERLY AMENDED TO ADD DEFENDANT AS A PARTY PURSUANT TO CPLR 1003 OR CPLR 3025 REQUIRING DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
EVEN WHERE EVIDENCE OF AN UNCHARGED CRIME IS “INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED” WITH THE NARRATIVE OF CHARGED CRIME, IT MAY BE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT A PRIOR UNCHARGED SEX ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST 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

NO EVIDENCE THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN EYEWITNESS, SAW A FIREARM, ROBBERY... FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE MEANING OF ‘DEPRIVE’ WITH RESPECT...