You are here: / / PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT HAD...

PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT HAD BEEN HOSED DOWN BY RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES ON A COLD DAY; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICY-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this icy-sidewalk slip and fall case. Defendants’ employees hosed down the sidewalk in front of the restaurant on a cold day. The argument that plaintiff saw the ice and should have taken another route (comparative negligence) did not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor:

To obtain partial summary judgment, a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate the absence of his own comparative fault … . Moreover, plaintiff is not required to show that “defendants’ negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident to be entitled to summary judgment” … . The evidence plaintiff submitted in support of his motion shows that defendants-tenants … created the dangerous condition when their employees hosed the sidewalk on a cold winter day … . Defendants-owners … had a non delegable duty to maintain the sidewalk and had notice that the restaurant employees had created a dangerous condition, because [the] property manager and … superintendent had observed the restaurants’ employees hosing the sidewalk. Benny v Concord Partners 46th St. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 07665, First Dept 12-17-20

 

You might also like
WHOLLY ARBITRARY DECISION BY COOPERATIVE BOARD TO RESCIND PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE CONTRACT NOT SHIELDED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SITE SAFETY CONSULTANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS NOT CREDIBLE JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE MOTION, DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN DEPORTED, ARGUED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT FOR HIS ATTORNEY’S ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION (FIRST DEPT).
WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IS A FACT-BASED DETERMINATION GENERALLY NOT SUITED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FINDINGS BY THE MOTION COURT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY UNDISPUTED FACTS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLOWING THE CORPORTE VEIL TO BE PIERCED REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply Where There Is Fraud
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
COLLEGE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED PH.D STUDENT’S LEARNING DISABILITY, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM UPON FAILURE OF AN EXAM (FIRST DEPT).
SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (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

NYC’S “OPEN SPACE” ZONING REQUIREMENT IS MET BY ROOFTOP GARDENS... QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS DUE TO DEFENDANTS’...