You are here: / / PLAINTIFF PRESENTED ONLY SPECULATION ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL,...
, ,

PLAINTIFF PRESENTED ONLY SPECULATION ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted because plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall:

… [T]he landlord met her prima facie burden on her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting the plaintiff’s deposition transcript which demonstrated, prima facie, that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation … . The plaintiff’s theory that she slipped on water dripping from the ceiling was speculative in light of, inter alia, her deposition testimony that she “personally didn’t see any water dripping, but there must have been a drip from the ceiling because the ground was wet.” Moreover, [third-party defendant] testified at his deposition that, although there had been a prior water leak coming from the ceiling into the kitchen, that leak was not near the location of the plaintiff’s accident. Bilska v Truszkowski, 2019 NY Slip Op 02490, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

You might also like
Property Owner and Snow Removal Contractor Should Have Been Awarded Summary Judgment in Snow/Ice Slip and Fall Case—Analytical Criteria Explained
Suspended Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Termination-of-Parental-Rights Proceeding
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) HAS EXCLUSIVELY APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DECIDE A MATTER THAT HAS NOT FIRST BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, ALTHOUGH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS VIOLATED, THE VIOLATION WAS NOT A BASIS FOR ANNULMENT OF THE ZBA DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
Where Plaintiff Does Not Know Which of Two Defendants Distributed the Product Which Caused the Injury, the Doctrine of Alternative Liability Applies—Doctrine Explained
THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEDENT; DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE HERSELF AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
Mother Not Given Sufficient Opportunity to Substantiate Her Income

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 DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL...