You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE...
,

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case were entitled to summary judgment, in part because they demonstrated they did not have actual or constructive notice of the water on the floor in the laundry room where plaintiff allegedly fell:

… [T]he defendants established, prima facie, that they maintained their premises in a reasonably safe condition and that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence … . In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that she did not see any water when she was last in the laundry room approximately 40 minutes prior to the accident. The defendants also submitted evidence that the machine was serviced by a vendor three days prior to the incident and that when the vendor left the premises, the machine was in working condition. When the vendor inspected the machine again on the day of the accident, the vendor determined that the machine was in working condition and that any leak was caused by the use of too much soap. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had actual notice of a recurring hazardous condition and, thus, could be charged with constructive notice of the subject condition. The plaintiff’s daughter’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion merely showed that the defendants had a general awareness that, at times, water leaked from the machine at issue … . Daniel v York Terrace, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05432, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: In this slip and fall case, defendants demonstrated the area where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell had been inspected 40 minutes prior to the fall and there was no water on the floor. In addition the defendants demonstrated the washing machine was serviced three days before the fall. That proof was sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of the water on the floor.

 

You might also like
A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEX OFFENDER AND THE VICTIM (HERE DEFENDANT’S YOUNG STEPDAUGHTER) DOES NOT INCREASE THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THEREFORE CANNOT, STANDING ALONE, BE THE BASIS FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT). ​
GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY.
CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD’S RECORDS CONCERNING A PARTICULAR POLICE OFFICER EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW AND CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT)
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO AN ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE GUILTY PLEA ENTERED BY A NON-TESTIFYING PARTICIPANT IN THE SHOOTING (DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM); DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST THE ACCOMPLICE JURY INSTRUCTION (WHICH REQUIRES CORROBORATION OF THE ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY) OR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD (SUBLESSOR) DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE TO PREVENT A MENTALLY ILL TENANT FROM SMOKING IN THE APARTMENT WHERE A FIRE STARTED.
POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (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

THE RECORD ON APPEAL DID NOT SUPPORT FAMILY COURT’S RULING MOTHER HAD... MOTHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RELOCATING WITH THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY...