You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHICH PRECLUDES DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. Defendants’ presented evidence of the janitorial schedule for a particular day which was deemed sufficient to preclude liability because plaintiff did not demonstrate the schedule was manifestly unreasonable.  And plaintiff’s testimony the defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged wet condition on the stairs:

Defendants’ superintendent offered testimony as to the janitorial schedule to be followed on a particular day. An established reasonable cleaning routine precludes the imposition of liability … . Where, as here, the incident occurs outside of the scheduled cleaning routine, plaintiff’s failure to raise a factual issue that such routine was manifestly unreasonable so as to require altering it warrants dismissal of the complaint … .

Furthermore, plaintiff testified that there was no wet condition on the stairs when he left the building, that upon his return a short while later he observed an alleged wet condition on the stairs, that he did not notify anyone of such condition, and that as a result of this condition he slipped and fell on the stairs as he was leaving the building a second time. Plaintiff’s testimony demonstrates that defendants did not have actual notice of the purported wet condition, or constructive notice given that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it … . Thomas v Sere Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06443, First Dept 9-3-19

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE FELL OVER A WORKER WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OFF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE TERM “ECONOMIC SECURITY” IN THE NYU FACULTY HANDBOOK DID NOT PROHIBIT A POLICY (THE “REF” POLICY) TYING A TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS’ SALARY-REDUCTION TO THE AMOUNT OF GRANTS PROCURED IN A GIVEN YEAR; THE REF POLICY WAS NOT A DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE; A SPECIFIC SALARY FIGURE IN A TENURED FACULTY MEMBER’S CONTRACT, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BE REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE REF POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS RAPED IN DEFENDANTS’ BAR/RESTAURANT AND RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY AND THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE PRESSURED DEFENDANT INTO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN RELIEVED, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT A CRITICAL STAGE, GUILTY PLEAS VACATED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED.
ALTHOUGH NOT AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS “RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES” AND “COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATION” ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ FRAUD, AS OPPOSED TO THE 2008-2009 FINANCIAL CRISIS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S LOSS, AND WHETHER AN OMISSION ON DEFENDANTS’ PART WAS AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST 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

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR... THE INSURED DID NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SCHEDULED INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMS IN THIS...