You are here: / / A WALKWAY WET FROM RAIN WHICH WAS FALLING AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL...
,

A WALKWAY WET FROM RAIN WHICH WAS FALLING AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate the slip and fall was caused by a dangerous condition. The walkway where plaintiff fell was wet from rain, which was falling at the time:

The mere fact that an outdoor walkway or stairway becomes wet from precipitation is insufficient to establish the existence of a dangerous condition … . Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the plaintiff’s slip and fall on the landing of a stairway leading to the entrance of the restaurant occurred solely because that area was wet due to precipitation. Among other things, in support of their motions, the defendants submitted the transcript of plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which indicates that the location where the plaintiff slipped and fell was wet due to the rain that had fallen and was falling at the time of his accident … . Derosa v Zaliv, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 07862, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

You might also like
RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO A KITTEN SHIPPED BY AIR LIMITED TO $50 BY THE TERMS OF THE AIR WAYBILL (SECOND DEPT).
Robbery Conviction Against Weight of Evidence—Hand In Pocket Not Evidence of Threat to Use Force
Plaintiffs Raised a Question of Fact Whether “SLAPP” Suit Has a Substantial Basis in Fact and Law
DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
No Article 78 Review Where Petitioner Defaulted
Defendant Driver Could Not Avoid Striking Bicyclist Who Did Not Stop at a Stop Sign
HERE THE CLAIMANT WAS DEEMED DISABLED BY AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE (CANCER) CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS; THE EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPENSATION IS THE LAST EMPLOYER WHERE THE NATURE OF THE WORK EXPOSED CLAIMANT TO ASBESTOS, NOT NECESSARILY THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME THE CANCER WAS DIAGNOSED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO IS MILDLY AUTISTIC, DEMONSTRATED (1) HE IS NOT DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA) ARTICLE 17-A AND (2) HE UNDERSTANDS AND IS ABLE TO MANAGE HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS; THE PETITION TO DISSOLVE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DECRETAL PARAGRAPH OF THE APPELLATE DECISION REMITTING THE MATTER FOR RETRIAL... THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE...