You are here: / / EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED ONCE A MONTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK...
,

EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED ONCE A MONTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact about the cause of the fall (cracks in the asphalt), whether the defendant had notice of the condition, and whether the defect was trivial. Evidence the area was inspected once a month was no sufficient. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The defendant … failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition of the driveway … . To meet its initial burden to show a lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer probative evidence demonstrating a proximity in time between when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell … . The affidavit of the defendant’s maintenance worker submitted in support of the defendant’s motion referred only to his general inspection practices but did not refer to any specific inspection in the area of the plaintiff’s fall relative to the date of the incident. Another employee of the defendant averred in an affidavit that she had inspected the driveway approximately seven weeks prior to the plaintiff’s fall and found all routes were clear of obstructions. She also averred that the defendant’s maintenance department inspected the driveway at least once per month. This evidence was insufficient to establish, prima facie, lack of constructive notice … .

The defendant also failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that the alleged defect was trivial. The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the cracked condition of the driveway was trivial as a matter of law, and thus, nonactionable … . Croshier v New Horizons Resources, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03892, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENDANT IN THIS INQUEST ON DAMAGES; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEFAULTED ON LIABILITY IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DEFENDANT APPEARED FOR THE INQUEST (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MRNACAJ GESTURED THAT SALIAN COULD PULL OUT OF A DRIVEWAY INTO MRNACAJ’S LANE, MRNACAJ COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT SALIAN WOULD CONTINUE INTO THE OTHER LANE WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK, MRNACAJ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THE BUS DRIVER WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THE MINUTES OF A “QUALITY ASSURANCE” PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ASSESSING THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AFFORDED A PATIENT DO NOT IDENTIFY THE SPEAKERS, THE PARTY-STATEMENT EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE APPLIES, MAKING ALL THE STATEMENTS BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENT MADE BY BANK EMPLOYEE TO THE EFFECT THE BANK WAS CLOSING THE ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT MONEY LAUNDERING WAS NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DEFAMATION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Hospital Can Be Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-employee Physician Under Apparent or Ostensible Agency Theory

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

THE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT ABSENT A...