You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED...
,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not demonstrate plaintiff could not identify the cause of his slip and fall. Plaintiff fell near a sink in defendants’ bathroom. Although he did not see the condition which caused him to fall, his pants were wet after the fall:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not see the condition that caused him to fall prior to the accident. However, he testified that, after he fell, his pants became wet. “Contrary to the defendants’ contention, this testimony does not establish that the cause of the plaintiff’s fall cannot be identified without engaging in speculation” … . Redendo v Central Ave. Chrysler Jeep, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03411, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff did not see the condition which caused him to fall near a sink in defendants’ bathroom, but his pants were wet after the fall. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground the plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall.

​

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS HIRED TO FIX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INSURED’S FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED RELIEVED THE INSURER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.
“Vested Right” Doctrine Explained
DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO CLAIMANT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders Warranted Striking the Answer
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE IT TOOK ACTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (c) (SECOND DEPT).
IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT IT MUST CONSIDER, THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED AND THE MATTER REMITTED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE, A SEPARATE PAPER, WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE, AS REQUIRED BY THE UCC; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PRESUMABLY THE ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY CHARGES STEMMED FROM THE THEFT OF THE... PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SEND THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE...