You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the icy condition in this slip and fall case. Although the district demonstrated that it removed snow and slush from the area as late as January 6, it did not demonstrate that it inspected or cleaned the area between January 6 and January 9 when plaintiff fell:

Here, the School District failed to meet its initial burden as the movant. The evidence submitted by the School District demonstrated that snow fell on January 2 and 3, 2014. On January 2, 3, and 4, 2014, the School District removed snow and ice from all of its property, including the subject elementary school. On January 6, 2014, between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., the School District removed slush from all of its property. However, no evidence was submitted as to what the accident site looked like after the School District performed work on the premises on January 6, 2014, and what, if any, cleaning procedures or inspection procedures were performed from 7:00 a.m. on January 6, 2014, until the time of the plaintiff’s accident on January 9, 2014. Accordingly, the School District failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall … . Muzio v Levittown Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 03974, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

You might also like
Neglect Finding Can Be Based Upon a Single Incident of Excessive Corporal Punishment
HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN A HYBRID PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE MADE FOR BOTH; HERE THERE WAS NO MOTION TO DISMISS THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES CAUSES OF ACTION; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
AFTER WALKING OVER A TRAP DOOR, PLAINTIFF STEPPED BACK AND FELL THROUGH THE OPEN DOOR; DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT). ​
To Be Entitled to Summary Judgment on a Labor Law 200 Cause of Action, the Defendant Must Demonstrate the Defendant (1) Did Not Control the Plaintiff’s Work and (2) Did Not Create or Have Constructive Knowledge of the Dangerous Condition
Erroneous Discharge of Mortgage Can Be Set Aside Where No Detrimental Reliance
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION; THE DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY TOLD PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICIAN THAT PLAINTIFF WAS BANNED FROM DEFENDANT’S PHARMACY FOR STEALING (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony Stating that She Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall Was Fatal to the Action—the Deposition Testimony Was Not Overcome by a “Feigned Issue” Subsequently Raised in an Affidavit or by Expert Opinion Evidence Alleging the Cause of the Fall

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUEENS COUNTY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY... DEFENDANT-SELLERS NOT LIABLE FOR MOLD AND MICE IN HOUSE SOLD TO PLAINTIFFS,...