You are here: / / THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE...
,

THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant construction company (Pinto) did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall (a construction sign on the sidewalk) and that it did not create the condition:

Pinto failed to meet its initial burden on its cross motion with respect to constructive notice because its submissions “failed to establish as a matter of law that the [dangerous] condition [was] not visible and apparent or that [it] had not existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit [Pinto] or [its] employees to discover and remedy [it]” … . Testimony from Pinto’s superintendent that Pinto had a general policy of taking down and storing its construction signs at the end of each workday was insufficient to establish that Pinto lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition because Pinto failed to establish that it had complied with that general policy prior to the occurrence of the incident in question … .

Pinto also failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition because its own submissions raise triable issues of fact with respect to that issue … . There is no dispute that Pinto’s submissions established that the sign plaintiff tripped over belonged to Pinto. Although the deposition testimony from Pinto’s superintendent established that, at the time of the accident, Pinto had not been present at the work site for about a week, he did not know how the sign ended up on the ground or how long it had been there, and he only speculated that the sign may have been used by another contractor who failed to properly put it away.  Brioso v City of Buffalo, 2022 NY Slip Op 06380, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Defendant construction company did not demonstrate it did not have constructive knowledge of and was not responsible for the presence of the construction sign on the sidewalk over which plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell.

 

You might also like
Evidence Needed to Corroborate Accomplice Testimony and Evidence Admissible at Restitution Hearing Explained
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THERE MAY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES AT THE POLICE STATION BY A POLICE OFFICER, CASE SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
CLAIMANTS DID NOT ALLEGE WHEN THE ALLEGED INJURIES RELATED TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION WERE INCURRED, CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR MEDICAL SERVICES WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A CLERK’S JUDGMENT FOR A SUM CERTAIN; DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS WITH NOTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE APPLIES ONLY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, THEREFORE DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY A PSYCHIATRIST WHO DID NOT TESTIFY WERE ADMISSIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENTS MADE AFTER ILLEGAL ARREST NOT SUPPRESSIBLE IF SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED.
PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO LEAVE A TRAILER THROUGH THE EXIT WHICH DID NOT HAVE A STAIRWAY ATTACHED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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

DIRECT APPEAL, AS OPPOSED TO AN ARTICLE 78, WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CONTEMPT... THE TOWN CONTRACTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED;...