You are here: / / PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE ROAD CONDITION...
,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE ROAD CONDITION WHICH CAUSED HIS SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s slip and fall action should not have been dismissed. Although the city demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition, plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition when it attempted road repair:

… [P]laintiff Nicholas Martin testified consistently — both at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-H and a deposition — that on January 17, 2017, he slipped and fell on Seward Avenue, between Pugster Avenue and Olmtead Avenue. At the time, plaintiff lived on the same block where his accident occurred. He specified that he fell on the roadway in front of 2007 Seward Avenue. When shown photographs where his accident occurred, he stated that he fell on a square blacktop that contained loose gravel and was raised about one and one-half inches. He had noticed the condition about a month before his accident, when pavement work had been done. Although he did not see who did the road work, his girlfriend told him that the City had performed the work. Martin v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 07503, First Dept 12-15-20

 

You might also like
TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
THE WRENCH WHICH FELL AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE WORKER WHO DROPPED IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, WAS THE OWNER OF THE BASEMENT SPACE USED BY DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS TRESPASS ACTION, BECAUSE THE DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, AND THE REFERENCE TO IT IN THE DEEDS, WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, PAROL AGREEMENTS TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA TO DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).
Disagreement About the Meaning of a Term in the Shared-Fee-Agreement Did Not Render the Contract Ambiguous—No Need for Interpretation of the Term by the Court
“Sophisticated and Well-Counseled Entity” Did Not Make Prima Facie Claim of Fraud; No Due Diligence Demonstrated
Presumption Tenants-In-Common Share Equally Can Be Rebutted
FAILURE TO FILE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITHIN 20 DAYS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; SERVICE IS DEEMED COMPLETE 10 DAYS AFTER FILING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE (FIRST DEPT). ​
“Foreseeability” In the Context of a Building Collapse

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 SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WAS DEEMED NONCONSENSUAL SOLELY BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS... THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH...