You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER IT HAD...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER IT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, ANY CONFLICT IN PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DID NOT RENDER IT INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the escalator slip and fall case should not have been granted:

The defendant’s submissions, which included a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the escalator steps … . Furthermore, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he slipped and fell on a wet step while he was riding an escalator. In light of this testimony, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his accident … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and any conflict in the testimony or evidence presented merely raised an issue of fact for the factfinder to resolve … . Kerzhner v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02077, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THE EFFECT THE VILLAGE WAS REQUIRED TO REPAIR A BULKHEAD/STORM DRAIN WHICH RAN THROUGH AN EASEMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; THE WOODEN BULKHEAD WHICH CRADLED THE DRAIN PIPE HAD DETERIORATED CAUSING SINK HOLES (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL.
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE” FELL SHORT OF AN ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DOING REPAIR WORK OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPELLANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ENTITLING HER TO A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
CONTRACTUAL PROVISION LIMITING DAMAGES IS ENFORCEABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD ONLY TWO SECONDS TO REACT TO FORKLIFT WHICH ENTERED THE... PRIOR PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED CONDEMNATION OF LAND ALREADY SUBJECT TO...