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
MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR RETURN OF THE CHILD AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THE CHILD IN THIS DERIVATIVE NEGLECT AND ABUSE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS, MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL; DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT; LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
Parents of Children in Public Schools Had Standing to Seek Court Review of the SUNY Trustees’ Authorization of Charter Schools—The Authorization Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious or an Abuse of Discretion
THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S EXCESSIVE-FORCE CLAIM AGAINST THE POLICE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THAT PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE; THE APPLICATION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER VIOLATED THE RECKLESS-DISREGARD-FOR-THE-SAFETY-OF-OTHERS STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE VEHICLES IN PURSUIT (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT HAD LEFT DEFENDANT-PRACTICE AT THE TIME THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE PRACTICE; THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE SUIT; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION TO ADD THE APPELLANT AS A DEFENDANT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST) DNA ANALYSIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED WITHOUT HOLDING A FRYE HEARING (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...