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
THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATE ENVELOPE RULE (RPAPL 1304) (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED A DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AFFORDED BY CPLR 205(A) (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BY ASKING QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES AND INTERRUPTING CROSS-EXAMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
Admissions In Hospital Records Which Contradicted Plaintiff’s Trial Testimony Properly Admitted/Seat Belt Defense Should Not Have Been Submitted to the Jury—Insufficient Foundation/”Missing Witness” Jury-Instruction Request Not Supported by a Showing the Testimony Would Be “Material” and “Noncumulative”
Motions for Findings Allowing Child to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Should Have Been Granted
THE INSURER’S ACCEPTANCE OF PREMIUM PAYMENTS AFTER IT LEARNED OF THE MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WAIVED THE INSURER’S RIGHT TO RESCIND THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; AN INDICTMENT RAISES ONLY A PRESUMPTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHICH CAN BE REBUTTED; A PROSECUTOR IS ENTITLED ONLY TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS AN INVESTIGATOR (SECOND DEPT).
VILLAGE FAILED TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE INJURY CAUSED BY TREE FALLING IN ROADWAY.

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...