You are here: / / DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL...
, ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A DEFECTIVE RAILING ON A SECOND-STORY BALCONY); HOWEVER, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TRIGGERED AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging defendant created or had actual notice of the dangerous condition should have been granted. The facts are not described, but apparently a railing on plaintiff’s second-story balcony gave way and he fell to the ground. However, the cause of action alleging defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition properly survived summary judgment. The defendant received a letter from the village code enforcement officer which did not specifically address the condition of the plaintiff’s balcony but was sufficient to trigger an inspection of the property:

Defendant met its initial burden on its motion of establishing that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect in the second-story balcony … . In support of the motion, defendant submitted the deposition of plaintiff, who testified that he lived in the apartment for approximately 15 years prior to the accident and was unaware of a problem with the balcony railing. Defendant also submitted evidence establishing that it had received no complaints with respect to the condition of the railing and that it made no repairs to the railing prior to the accident.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged defect in the balcony railing by submitting a letter written by the Village of Springville Code Enforcement Officer and sent to defendant. The letter, dated 10 days before the accident, stated that “the porch” with respect to the subject property was “falling apart” and needed “immediate attention,” and asked defendant to schedule a time for the Officer to inspect the property. Although defendant’s reply papers included an affidavit from the Code Enforcement Officer explaining that the letter referred to a first-story porch and not the second-story balcony, a person reading the Officer’s letter without any clarification would not have known specifically which porch the Officer had observed in disrepair. “The duty of landowners to inspect their property is measured by a standard of reasonableness under the circumstances” … , and we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether the information in the letter should have aroused defendant’s suspicion so as to trigger such a duty to inspect … . Maracle v Colin C. Hart Dev. Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02939, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

You might also like
PETITIONERS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A USE VARIANCE BEFORE APPLYING FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE THEIR RESIDENCE AS AN AIRBNB, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO MOTHER AND MOTHER PRESENTED EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER WAS PROPERLY SERVED IS REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A SNOWMAKING MACHINE.
TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.
THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO RESCIND THE CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT PROVIDERS WHICH DISCOURAGED THEM FROM SPEAKING WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUING AN ADVISORY OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DID RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WHICH REQUIRES A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
Hospital Does Not Have a Duty to Prevent a Patient from Leaving the Hospital Against Medical Advice or to Ensure Patient’s Safe Return Home
NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH 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

THE DEFECTIVE-DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A TRUCK WHICH DID... THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A TOWN POLICE OFFICER ARE CONTROLLED BY...