You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HERSELF MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE...
,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HERSELF MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, HER DAUGHTER, WHO WITNESSED THE FALL, PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (New York City Housing Authority’s, NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s daughter, who witnessed the fall, provided sufficient evidence of the sidewalk defect:

“If a plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of a fall, any finding of negligence would be based upon speculation”  … . “That does not mean that a plaintiff must have personal knowledge of the cause of his or her fall” … . “It only means that a plaintiff’s inability to establish the cause of his or her fall — whether by personal knowledge or by other admissible proof — is fatal to a cause of action based on negligence” … . …

In support of its motion, NYCHA submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s daughter, Galina Moiseyeva (hereinafter Galina), who testified that she saw the plaintiff fall because of a “crack” or “gap” in the sidewalk, which made the sidewalk a “different level.” Further, Galina, who lived with the plaintiff in the premises abutting the sidewalk, testified that she walked along the sidewalk while traveling to and from work, and was previously aware of the alleged crack in the sidewalk. Contrary to NYCHA’s contentions, the alleged failure of the plaintiff and Galina to identify the exact location of the plaintiff’s alleged fall on a photograph shown at their depositions and hearings pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, which photograph was taken the day after the alleged accident occurred and after NYCHA had allegedly covered the subject part of the sidewalk with plywood, did not establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of her fall. Under the circumstances, NYCHA failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff fell due to the alleged defective condition of the sidewalk … . Moiseyeva v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 06766, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER TOPPLED OVER, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE LADDER WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT).
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITIY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DEFENSE AND THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT FITNESS CENTER; ALLEGEDLY, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE TRAINER INSTRUCTED HIM TO ATTEMPT A BALANCING EXERCISE (SECOND DEPT).
CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT WHICH PURCHASED PROPERTY IN THE TOWN OF ISLIP WAS ENTITLED TO AN EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAX; HOWEVER IF A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES, THE EXEMPTION WOULD BE PARTIAL (SECOND DEPT).
GENERAL AWARENESS OF A RECURRENT CONDITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PARTICULAR CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.
THE SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ON RECORD WHEN DEFENDANT BANK ISSUED A LOAN SECURED BY THE PROPERTY WAS FORGED AND THEREFORE VOID; DEFENDANT BANK, THEREFORE, WAS NOT PROTECTED AS A BONA FIDE ENCUMBRANCER FOR VALUE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY LAW 266 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE SEARCH WARRANT SEEKING CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) FROM THE NEW JERSEY CELL PHONE COMPANY WAS FAXED TO NEW JERSEY FROM NEW YORK; THEREFORE THE WARRANT WAS “EXECUTED” IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OR CPL ARTICLE 690 (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

LANDLORD DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE LEASE REQUIRED THE TENANT... A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF THE CARRIER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED...