You are here: / / IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOUR-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH...

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOUR-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH RISER AT THE ENTRANCE TO A SHOWER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 4 1/2 inch riser at the entrance to a shower, over which plaintiff tripped and fell, was open and obvious as a matter of law:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a tiled single-step riser while entering a shower stall in the locker room at the defendant’s fitness club. The single-step riser was approximately 4½ inches high and was tiled in the same color and pattern as the floor tiles which bordered the top and bottom of the step. * * *

“[T]he issue of ‘[w]hether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances'” … . In addition, “whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact-specific, and usually a question of fact for the jury” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the single-step riser was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the surrounding circumstances, including the lighting conditions at the time of the accident … . Lore v Fitness Intl., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06922, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Here in this slip and fall case, defendant did not demonstrate a 4 1/2 riser at the entrance to a shower was open and obvious as a matter of law.

 

You might also like
BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ITS STANDING, ITS COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE, OR ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RPAPL, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof of the Cause of Plaintiff’s Slip and Fall Need Not Be Based Upon Plaintiff’s Personal Knowledge
IN THIS ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE A MORTGAGE BASED UPON THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK WHICH SERVED THE 2008 COMPLAINT SEEKING FORECLOSURE HAD STANDING AND, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED IN 2008 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NOTICE BY PROOF WHICH MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304, PARTICULARLY THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS, WAS NOT SHOWN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COULD NOT COMMENCE A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHILE THE DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS STILL REPRESENTED HIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE CITY WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW IT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE NINE MONTH DELAY BEFORE THE PETITION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A SLIP AND FALL INCIDENT REPORT WAS CREATED BY THE POLICE ON THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM 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 NURSING HOME CAN BRING A PLENARY ACTION TO DETERMINE A RESIDENT’S... BEFORE SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, THE COURT DID...