You are here: / / THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE...

THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF AND/OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A PUDDLE OF LIQUID) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store (Whole Foods) did not demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the puddle of liquid which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Yerry [plaintiff] as the nonmovant, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the accident was not the result of the defendants’ failure to take appropriate remedial measures within a reasonable period of time after acquiring actual notice of a hazardous condition … . The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ employees made the condition “more hazardous by incomplete remedial measures” … . Yerry v Whole Food Mkt. Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05000, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Unusual case where there was a question of fact whether defendant’s inadequate clean-up of a puddle of liquid caused plaintiff’s slip and fall.

 

You might also like
Failure to Timely Respond to a Notice to Admit Not an Admission of the Matters Stated Therein—Notice Improperly Sought Admissions that Went to the Heart of the Controversy
HERE IN THIS MED MAL ACTION, THE COVID-RELATED IMMUNITY CODIFIED IN THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN IN APRIL 2020, BUT NOT THE CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN IN MARCH 2020, BEFORE HIS OFFICE WAS CLOSED PURSUANT TO THE COVID EMERGENCY DECLARATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Breached Contract By Not Being Ready on the Time-of-the-Essence Date and Was Therefore Not Entitled to a Return of the Downpayment/Plaintiff’s “Tortious-Interference-with-Contract” Cause of Action Against Brokers Dismissed Because Sellers Did Not Breach the Contract
Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Construction of Shopping Mall/No Showing of Unique Environmental Injury
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE OF THE HUSBAND WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE PROPERTY PASSED TO THE WIFE UPON THE HUSBAND’S DEATH (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

AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216... INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE...