You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ELEVATED WHEEL STOP IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case was properly denied. There was a question of fact whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of an elevated plastic wheel stop:

The appellants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the elevated and broken wheel stop over which the plaintiff alleged she fell. They failed to present evidence of when the specific area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected relative to when the subject accident occurred … . Baviello v Patterson Auto Convenience Store, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02052, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
THE REFEREE’S REPORT, WHICH IS MERELY ADVISORY AND IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS THAT WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE REFEREE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Review of State Liquor Authority (SLA) Determination Explained
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Pursue a Minimal Investigation (i.e., Failure to Access Defendant’s Psychiatric Records and Failure to Have the Defendant Examined by an Independent Psychiatrist) Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Conviction Reversed
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT DESIGN, WHICH HAD A UNITY OF INTEREST WITH DEFENDANT EISENBACH, DESIGN’S CEO; THE PLAINTIFF HAD AGREED TO DISCONTINUE THE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST EISENBACH BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON EISENBACH’S BEHALF (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT A MOTION ON NOTICE, AN APPEAL IS NOT AVAILABLE BUT A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE; THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DEFAULT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT ABANDON THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BORROWER’S APPLICATION FOR A LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT RELIEVE THE BANK OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FALL FROM BED WAS THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE TO TAKE ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FALLING AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FALL EXACERBATED THE PROGRESSION OF PLAINTIFF’S INTERCRANIAL HEMORRHAGE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS... DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED...