You are here: / / THERE REMAINED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE ICY CONDITION...

THERE REMAINED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE ICY CONDITION AND WHETHER THEY HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant property-owner’s and defendant property-manager’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the defendants created the icy condition and had constructive notice of the condition:

… [T]he plaintiff asserted in his bill of particulars that the defendants were negligent … in failing to maintain the premises, failing to repair the dangerous and defective condition, and in allowing an icy condition to exist. In his fourth supplemental bill of particulars, … the plaintiff clarified that the defendants created the dangerous condition that caused him to slip and fall by permitting the downspouts from the roof of the premises to deposit water directly onto the sidewalk, and alleged violations of various property maintenance codes related thereto. Thus, in support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants were … required to demonstrate that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition … .. The defendants failed to establish … that the drains played no role in the creation or exacerbation of the icy condition that allegedly caused the accident … . Moreover, the defendants failed to demonstrate that they did not have constructive notice of the allegedly defective downspouts. While [the] property director testified at his deposition that no tenants raised concerns about drainage issues caused by the downspouts, he acknowledged that, after snow events, his on-site maintenance worker would check for “ponding” on the sidewalks around the premises. Messina v Morton Vil. Realty, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01155, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

You might also like
THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
UNLIKE THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (DRAM SHOP ACT) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A BAR WHICH SERVES A VISIBLY INTOXICATED PERSON WHO IS LATER INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, A COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION APPLIES ONLY TO INJURIES CAUSED BY AN INTOXICATED PERSON ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY OR IN AN AREA UNDER DEFENDANT’S CONTROL AND SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).
“LAW OFFICE FAILURE” WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND D
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE; THE BANK NEED NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IF THE ISSUE IS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER; REPLY PAPERS CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES FIRST RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; BUT REPLY PAPERS MAY NOT PRESENT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVIDENCE ADDRESSING AN ISSUE RAISED IN THE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE BORROWER’S APPLICATION FOR A LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT RELIEVE THE BANK OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT CAUSES OF ACTION DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS SOUNDED IN FRAUD, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW; ALL WERE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THE APPELLANT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING MADE A TERRORISTIC THREAT IN VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW 490.20; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO INTIMIDATE THE CIVILIAN POPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL IN A NEGLECT PROCEEDING CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, FAMILY COURT TO ISSUE REPLACEMENT ORDER FROM WHICH AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN (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

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS... IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT INSTRUCT THE DECEDENT TO REVOKE...