You are here: / / A CONTRACTOR ALLEGED TO HAVE WORKED ON THE AREA OF THE ROADWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF...
,

A CONTRACTOR ALLEGED TO HAVE WORKED ON THE AREA OF THE ROADWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THEIR LIABILITY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality’s (Port Washington North’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. The code provision requiring written notice of the dangerous condition applied to the village, not to Port Washington North, and Port Washington North did not demonstrate it did not create the condition. In addition, defendant contractor did not demonstrate it did not do any work on the roadway in the area of the slip and fall:

A contractor [J. Anthony] may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk … . Thus, in moving for summary judgment, J. Anthony had the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it did not perform any work on the portion of the roadway where the accident occurred or that it did not create the allegedly defective condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . However, J. Anthony failed to satisfy its burden … .The failure to do so requires the denial of that branch of J. Anthony’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … .

Port Washington North moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that it had not received prior written notice of the alleged defect which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. … Since the prior written notice provision specifically limits the notice requirement to “street[s]” located “within the Village” (Village Code §§ 143-23, 143-22), this provision is not applicable to the facts here, as the location of the accident was not within Port Washington North. Moreover, Port Washington North failed to meet its prima facie burden of eliminating all triable issues of fact regarding its role in creating the allegedly defective condition … . Downing v J. Anthony Enters., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 08038, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT).
THE WRONG MAILING DATE IN AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE CANNOT BE CORRECTED IN AN AMENDED AFFIDAVIT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, AND THE AFFIDAVIT QUOTED FROM THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RELOCATING WITH THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING; CREDIBILITY ISSUES PLAY NO ROLE AT THE MOTION-TO-DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply
STATEMENTS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S DIVORCE WHICH REFERRED TO PLAINTIFF’S CONVICTION STEMMING FROM A BOILER ROOM PENNY STOCK OPERATION WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD ONLY TWO SECONDS TO REACT TO FORKLIFT WHICH ENTERED THE ROADWAY BLOCKING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT 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 FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED; THE DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN WHEN...