You are here: / / INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE INADVERTENTLY SLAPPED A DISPLAY CASE...
, ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE INADVERTENTLY SLAPPED A DISPLAY CASE IN THE HALL OF A SCHOOL AND THE GLASS SHATTERED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE A SIMILAR INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND SOME OF THE PANELS IN THE DISPLAY CASE WERE MADE OF SHATTERPROOF PLEXIGLASS; PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES-LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s premises-liability cause of action against defendant school district should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff was pretending to play basketball when he inadvertently slapped a display case in the hall of the school and the glass shattered. There was evidence glass in the display case had shattered before and some of the glass panels were made of shatterproof plexiglass:

The defendant’s evidence in support of the motion did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition because, among other things, the head custodian of the school testified at his deposition that at least one other glass panel in a similar display case in the school had shattered prior to the accident … . Further, the evidence submitted in support of the defendant’s motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the glass panel was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. In particular, the evidence demonstrated that the display case where the accident occurred contained two panes of shatterproof plexiglass and one glass pane and that the infant plaintiff was under the impression that the display case was made entirely of unbreakable material. R.B. v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 04616, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: Here a glass panel in a display case located in the hallway of a school shattered when plaintiff-student slapped it. There was evidence a similar incident occurred in the past, and some of the panels in the display case were made of shatterproof plexiglass. Therefore there was evidence the school had notice of the dangerous condition and there was a question whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT MOVING TO SUPPRESS CREDIT CARDS SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WERE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT; THE INCRIMINATING NATURE OF THE CREDIT CARDS WAS NOT IMMEDIATELEY APPARENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PROPERTY TRANSFER TO HER BROTHER BY HER MOTHER BASED UPON AN ALLEGATION MOTHER LACKED MENTAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, PLAINTIFF HAD ONLY A POTENTIAL, SPECULATIVE INTEREST IN HER MOTHER’S PROPERTY.
Differences Between Civil and Criminal Contempt Explained
THE INCLUSION OF OTHER MATERIAL IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IS A DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND WHICH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
25 Minute Response Time by Fire Department Was Not Actionable—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiffs and Fire Department—Fire Department’s Duty Is to the Public At Large
ALTHOUGH THE OPERATION OF THE KNIFE WAS DEMONSTRATED AT TRIAL, THERE WAS NO RECORD EVIDENCE THAT THE KNIFE POSSESSED BY DEFENDANT WAS A GRAVITY KNIFE, RELATED CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).
Nonparent Must Show Extraordinary Circumstances in Face of Custody Petition Even If Nonparent Has Custody Pursuant to Prior Consent Order
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE;... THE BANK’S PROOF THAT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED...