You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE THE ICE AND SNOW WHERE...

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE THE ICE AND SNOW WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS A RECURRING CONDITION (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE), AS WELL AS DEFENDANT’S ROLE IN CREATING THE CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about defendant’s (Ryco’s) “constructive notice” and “creation” of the snow and ice condition in the are where plaintiff slipped and fell:

With respect to constructive notice, it is well settled that a “defendant who has actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous condition can be charged with constructive notice of each specific recurrence of the condition” … . Here, the Ryco defendants’ own submissions raise a triable issue of fact whether they had actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous condition in the parking lot in front of the entrance where plaintiff fell, thereby placing them on constructive notice … .

… [T]he Ryco defendants’ own submissions “failed to eliminate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the ice on which . . . plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell was formed when snow piles created by the [Ryco] defendant[s’] snow removal efforts melted and refroze” … . Britt v Northern Dev. II, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06486, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

You might also like
Criteria for CPL 440.20 Motion Explained/Predicate Offenses Must Run Concurrently
“Local Authority,” Within the Meaning of the Public Authorities Law, Defined
PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL.
People Failed to Prove Low IQ Defendant Validly Waived His Miranda Rights and Gave Statements Voluntarily—Convictions Reversed, Some Charges Dismissed and New Trial Ordered
THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION IN THIS CRIMIINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION TO JUSTIFY THE TRAFFIC STOP AND DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AT THE TIME DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE CAR; THE STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AND THE COCAINE SEIZED FROM HIS PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA THAT HIS SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVSION REQUIRED VACATION OF THE PLEA; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR WAS NOT NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SORA COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND DURING AN EXTENDED TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT SUPERVISED AS A MITIGATING FACTOR WHICH MAY WARRANT A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (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

PLAINTIFF’S TITLE IX AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION, BASED ON ALLEGATIONS... THE CO-GUARDIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED WITHOUT A HEARING; ALTHOUGH THE...