You are here: / / ON A COLD DAY DEFENDANTS HOSED DOWN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED...

ON A COLD DAY DEFENDANTS HOSED DOWN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE; ANY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and recalling and vacating a decision in the same matter dated December 17, 2020, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant restaurants hosed down the sidewalk where plaintiff, an EMT responding to a call, slipped and fell on ice. Any comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part is not a bar to summary judgment:

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 Concord Partners 46th Street LLC (Concord) and Elo Equity, LLC, had a non delegable duty to maintain the sidewalk. Elo had notice that the restaurant employees had created a dangerous condition, because Elo’s superintendent had observed the restaurants’ employees hosing the sidewalk. The property manager for Concord did not personally observe the restaurant employees hosing down the sidewalk on the date in question; however, he testified that it was the general practice to hose down the sidewalk at approximately 7:30 a.m.

In opposition, defendants did not raise a question of fact with respect to the issue of their liability. Defendant restaurants admit that the evidence shows that their employees hosed the sidewalk with water before the incident occurred. Furthermore, defendants’ argument that there are triable issues of fact on the basis that plaintiff should have sought an alternative route to safely care for the patient relates to the issue of comparative negligence and, therefore, does not preclude summary resolution of the issue of their liability … . Benny v Concord Partners 46th St. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01550, First Dept 3-18-21

 

You might also like
Landlord Cannot Recover Lost Rent In Action Based Upon Breach of Covenant to Keep the Premises in Good Repair
THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).
SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD.
INTERMEDIARY BANK OWES NO DUTY TO BENEFICIARY OF AN ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER WHICH WAS BLOCKED BY A GOVERNMENT ORDER.
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ $96,000, CONSTITUTING TWO MONTHS’ RENT AND A SECURITY DEPOSIT, WAS TRANSFERRED TO DEFENDANT FROM AN ATTORNEY’S IOLA ACCOUNT, THE $96,000 CONSTITUTED AN “IDENTIFIABLE FUND” WHICH DEFENDANT “CONVERTED” WHEN IT WAS NOT RETURNED (FIRST DEPT).
THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN CPLR 510(3) WERE NOT MET; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FATHER MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE NYC ADMINISTRATION OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE UNREDACTED REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT WHICH WERE DEEMED UNFOUNDED; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT... THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENT, WHO HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE...