You are here: / / RARE SLIP AND FALL WON BY THE DEFENDANT AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEMONSTRATING...

RARE SLIP AND FALL WON BY THE DEFENDANT AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE BOX WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the presence of a cardboard box over which plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell—a rare slip and fall case where a lack of constructive notice was successfully demonstrated at the summary judgment stage:

Defendant sustained its initial burden of showing that it lacked notice of the presence of the cardboard box near the walkway of its building before the accident and that it observed a reasonable cleaning routine … .. Plaintiff testified that she did not see the box when she left work at 4:00 p.m. on the day before her fall, and defendant’s caretaker stated that it was not there when he left work at 4:30 p.m. on the same day. The caretaker also testified that he cleaned the area twice a day, first thing in the morning and last thing at night. Thus, the box could have been deposited near the walkway a few minutes before plaintiff’s accident … . Defendant is not required to patrol the area 24 hours a day … , and plaintiff failed to show that the cleaning schedule described by the caretaker was “‘manifestly unreasonable'” … .

Plaintiff’s argument that the caretaker admitted that tenants regularly left garbage near the walkway and that it was a recurring problem is unavailing. The caretaker’s testimony shows that defendant was aware of the general problem, not that it was aware of the specific presence of the cardboard box at issue, and that it addressed the problem by having the caretaker clean the area twice a day … . Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 03461, First Dept 5-26-22

Practice Point: In this slip and fall case, the defendant, at the summary judgment stage, presented evidence, including the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated the box which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall was not in the walkway long enough to raise a question of fact whether defendant was or should have been aware of it.

 

You might also like
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 340 (RESTRAINT OF TRADE) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED IN THIS FRAUD ACTION INVOLVING DIAMOND APPRAISALS (FIRST DEPT).
PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WITH A WEAPON PROPERLY ADMITTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE DEPICTED WEAPON WAS USED IN THE CHARGED OFFENSE, JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY IN THE INDICTMENT AND DESPITE THE PEOPLE’S THEORY THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY.
MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT WHICH ECUADORIAN STATUTE IS MOST CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO NEW YORK’S FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CRITERIA FOR PURPOSES OF NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE; HERE THE ACTION ACCRUED IN ECUADOR; THE SHORTER OF THE APPLICABLE ECUADORIAN AND NEW YORK STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS WILL APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to Recover Payment Made to a Limited Partner Time-Barred by Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA)
Malpractice by Chiropractor Governed by Three-Year Statute of Limitations
CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).
OPERATIVE DATE FOR POLICY COVERAGE WAS THE DATE THE POWER GENERATING TURBINE WAS TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE, EVEN THOUGH THE DAMAGE WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE SHUT DOWN HAPPENED BEFORE THE POLICY PERIOD (FIRST 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

A REJECTED PURCHASE OFFER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL TO PROVE THE FAIR MARKET... PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN AN OPEN, UNGUARDED MANHOLE AS HE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OVER...