You are here: / / A LOOSE DOOR HANDLE CAUSED THE GLASS DOOR TO SHATTER; DEFENDANTS PRESENTED...
,

A LOOSE DOOR HANDLE CAUSED THE GLASS DOOR TO SHATTER; DEFENDANTS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF WHEN THE DOOR HANDLE WAS LAST INSPECTED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants did not demonstrate the glass door which shattered had been inspected close in time to the incident. Therefore a question of fact remained whether defendants had constructive knowledge of the loose handle which caused the door to shatter when plaintiff attempted to open it:

Although 730-Gen’s urban portfolio manager testified that he inspected the interior vestibule doors following an incident that involved the exterior doors in the weeks prior to plaintiff’s accident, his testimony only provided a vague description of the inspection performed. Importantly, he could not identify exactly when the inspection occurred, and he did not indicate that any steps were taken to examine the door’s metal handle.

The urban portfolio manager further testified that defendants had a daily inspection protocol in place to inspect the vestibule doors. However, he admitted that he had never seen anyone perform a daily inspection and he could not identify when the last inspection occurred prior to plaintiff’s accident. …

730-Gen also asserts that the doors received cursory inspections, in that they were used on a daily basis. Yet, there is no record of these cursory inspections taking place … , or any indication that they involved a reasonable inspection of the door handle … .

… 730-Gen’s reliance on the urban portfolio manager’s inspection, which occurred almost two weeks prior to plaintiff’s accident, failed to establish, prima facie, that inspecting the door handle on a biweekly basis is reasonable, especially in light of the daily inspection protocol defendant contends was in place to ensure the handles were tightly secured … . Doherty v 730 Fifth Upper, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02979, First Dept 5-30-24

Practice Point: Unless the defendant can show the instrumentality which caused plaintiff’s injury was inspected and found safe close in time to the injury, a defendant’s motion for summary judgment will not be granted.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED WITH TOOTH NUMBER 28 IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) WAS THE LESSOR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, IT WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND, THEREFORE, WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, SHE WAS IN AN AREA USED TO CREATE MATERIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, WHICH IS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (FIRST DEPT). ​
ONCE THE CITY TAX LIENS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED PAYMENT TO THE CITY, INSTEAD OF THE LIENHOLDER, IS NOT APPLIED TO THE DEBT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED; HER TESTIMONY ABOUT HER ALLEGED CONDUCT AT THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) WOULD HAVE BEEN CUMULATIVE AND DEFENDANTS COULD NOT SHOW THE IME WAS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY (FIRST DEPT).
Violent Felony Conviction for which Defendant Not Yet Sentenced Can Be Considered in SORA Assessment
Trivial Defect in Sidewalk Not Actionable/First Floor Tenant Abutting Sidewalk Not a Proper Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH A SAFETY LINE AND A HARNESS WHICH HE WAS NOT USING WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT, FAILURE TO USE THE SAFETY LINE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A MOTION TO RENEW WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE IT MUST BE EXPLAINED; HERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

SECOND DEPARTMENT TO JUDGES: DON’T DISMISS A COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND... A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) EVALUATION BASED UPON THE EXPIRED 2012 GUIDELINES...