You are here: / / DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS...
,

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED; THERFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The defendants did not submit proof of when the area was last inspected and therefore did not demonstrate they lacked constructive notice of the condition:

A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it … . To meet its burden on the issue of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer evidence as to when the accident site was last inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate when they last inspected the walkway prior to the incident and they failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that the cinder block was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Ferrer v 120 Union Ave., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03096, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: For years hundreds of cases were reversed because there was no evidence of when the area of a slip and fall was last inspected by a defendant and therefore defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice and was not entitled to summary judgment. Now there are just a few cases reversed for this reason in a given year. The bar has learned this lesson.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE EASEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED IN PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CHAIN OF TITLE, IT WAS INDEXED UNDER A BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER SYSTEM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE EASEMENT AND WAS NOT A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FOR REPEATEDLY PUNCHING THE VICTIM AFTER THE VICTIM WAS HANDCUFFED AND RESTRAINED FACE DOWN ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN AN UNCERTIFIED, UNAUTHENTICATED REPORT FOR WHICH NO FOUNDATION WAS PROVIDED DID NOT CREATE AN ISSUE OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING COLLAPSED FOR NO APPARENT REASON; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; IN ANY EVENT THE EXPERT’S OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO LOCK THE SCAFFOLD SPOKE TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
TACIT MISREPRESENTATION BY STUDENT DURING ADMISSIONS PROCESS ENTITLED LAW SCHOOL TO REFUSE TO AWARD LLM DEGREE AFTER STUDENT HAD COMPLETED COURSE REQUIREMENTS.
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).
NOTES TAKEN BY AN OBSERVER HIRED BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO WITNESS AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANTS’ DOCTOR ARE PRIVILEGED AS MATERIAL PREPARED FOR TRIAL, THE OBSERVER WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR).

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

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ADDRESS AT WHICH SERVICE OF... THE BANK DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT VIOLATED THE SEPARATE-ENVELOPE...