You are here: / / Summary-Judgment Proof Requirements for a Defendant in a Slip and Fall...

Summary-Judgment Proof Requirements for a Defendant in a Slip and Fall Case Explained (Again)–Not Met Here

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, again stated the summary-judgment proof requirements for a defendant in a slip and fall case:

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the condition on which the plaintiff slipped, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition … . To constitute constructive notice, a dangerous condition must be visible and apparent and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it … . To meet its burden on the issue of constructive notice, a defendant “must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice … . Arcabascia v We”re Assoc Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01595, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

You might also like
Criteria for Professional Negligence Actions Against Accountant Not in Privity with Plaintiff and Against Actuary
STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BY AN INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WHICH LED TO A MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENT OF THE JUVENILE.
Questions of Fact Re: Whether a Deed Was Forged and Whether a Will Was Duly Executed
“Law Office Failure” Excuse for Failure to Enter a Default Judgment Within One Year Not Sufficient
FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN.
Petitioner, Who Was Sentenced to Death in Federal Court, Could Not Be Declared “Civilly Dead” Pursuant to the Civil Rights Law—Paternity Petition Should Not Have Been Dismissed
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (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

Misrepresentation that Dwelling Was “Owner-Occupied” Justified Rescission... Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Summary Judgment In Favor of Defen...