You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL, HOWEVER DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate the absence of constructive notice of the condition of the stairway where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have granted on that ground. However, although Supreme Court didn’t rule on the issue, the Second Department held that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiff could not identify the cause of the fall:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. While the deposition testimony of the premises’ caretaker demonstrated that the caretaker inspected and cleaned the subject stairwell on a regular basis, the defendant failed to present evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the subject accident occurred … . Thus, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it established that it did not have notice of the alleged hazardous condition.

A defendant in a slip-and-fall case may also establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation … . Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the plaintiff’s General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and deposition transcripts, which demonstrated that he was unable to identify the cause of his fall without resorting to speculation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard … . Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 01246, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

You might also like
PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATED UPON EXPEDITED REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
Court Abused Its Discretion In Exercising Its Inherent Power to Grant a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment More than a Year After the Judgment Was Entered (Five Years Here)
Law Office Failure Was Valid Excuse for Default—Answer Deemed Served in Absence of Cross Motion
THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).
Plaintiff Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall/Therefore, There Was an Insufficient Showing of a Connection Between Alleged Building Code Violations and the Fall
AFTER THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S VACATION OF DEFENDANT’S “ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A PHYSICALLY DISABLED CHILD” CONVICTION (BY GUILTY PLEA) ON “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” GROUNDS WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT AGAIN VACATED THE CONVICTION ON “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE” GROUNDS; THE MEDICAL RECORDS INDICATED THE CHILD WAS NOT BURNED BY HOT WATER, BUT RATHER SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION TO MEDICATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO FATHER’S ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM FATHER’S FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW HEARING ORDERED (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

IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT TESTIMONY OF THE PEOPLE’S DNA EXPERT,... EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED...