You are here: / / THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO ELIMINATE A TRIPPING HAZARD WAS NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE...
,

THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO ELIMINATE A TRIPPING HAZARD WAS NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS DID NOT FIT WITHIN ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant, which had contracted with plaintiff’s employer to offer a work-training program, did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who tripped and fell over extension cord wires during the training session. The only Espinal exception alleged was that the defendant launched an instrument of harm, which was deemed inapplicable by the Second Department. The alleged failure to eliminate the tripping hazard was not actionable:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to that general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

… The Supreme Court’s determination that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the defendant negligently failed to correct the alleged tripping hazard amounts to a finding that the defendant may have merely failed to become “an instrument for good,” which is insufficient to impose a duty of care upon a party not in privity of contract with the injured party … . Espeleta v Synergy Resources, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04138, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN MAKING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Re: Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault Precludes Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Erroneously Granted Summary Judgment to Plaintiff “To the Extent … Defendant Is Liable”
THE BANK’S DISCONTINUANCE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT; THE REQUEST, AFTER DISCONTINUANCE, FOR A DECLARATION THE ACCELERATION HAD BEEN REVOKED WAS A REQUEST FOR AN IMPERMISSIBLE ADVISORY OPINION (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
No Substantial Basis in the Record for Custody Determination

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

PETITIONER, WHO CONSENTED TO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER ARREST, MAY SEEK DISCRETIONARY... PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE...