You are here: / / THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS...
,

THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inspection pit into which plaintiff fell was open and obvious and therefore not actionable:

… “[T]here is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” ,,, , or “where the condition on the property is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and could be reasonably anticipated by those using it” … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the inspection pit was an open and obvious condition that was inherent or incidental to the nature of the property and was not inherently dangerous … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The speculative and conclusory affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert submitted in opposition to the motion did not allege that there was a violation of any applicable statute or relevant industry standard, and it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Lebron v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04960, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The open and obvious condition, an inspection pit, into which plaintiff fell, was open and obvious and did not violate any statute or code provision. Therefore, plaintiff’s fall was not actionable.

 

You might also like
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY.
NONPARTY SUBPOENA PROPERLY QUASHED BECAUSE IT DID NOT PROVIDE THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF EXECUTED THE STIPULATION UNDER DURESS (SECOND DEPT).
COURT HAD DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A BELATED ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IN 22 NYCRR 202.48 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A DISCRETIONARY ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
If the Accident Was Staged by the Insured, the Insurer Would Not Be Required to Cover a Party Injured In the Collision, Even If that Party Was Not Involved in the Staging
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AFFECTED THE PROGNOSIS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE RETURN DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS MISCALEDARED AS THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION PAPERS; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CLAIM HE COULDN’T STOP BECAUSE HIS CAR SKIDDED ON WET METAL GRATING DID NOT ESTABLISH THE REAR-END COLLISION WAS UNAVOIDABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER WAVED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PEDESTRIAN, INDICATING SHE WAS ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO CROSS THE STREET; ONE SECOND LATER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR; THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A SUPERSEDING, INTERVENING ACT AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW (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

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THE ADDRESS IN THE AFFIDAVIT... THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE...