You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL INTO A THREE-FEET-DEEP HOLE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE...

PLAINTIFF FELL INTO A THREE-FEET-DEEP HOLE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE HOLE WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff fell into a three-feet-deep hole near where a fence was being installed:

“A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [its] property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff’s presence on the property” … . A property owner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition provided that, as a matter of law, the condition is not inherently dangerous … . “The issue of whether a hazard is latent or open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question,” but “a court may determine that a risk was open and obvious as a matter of law when the established facts compel that conclusion . . . on the basis of clear [and undisputed evidence” … . Further, the law is clear that “[e]vidence that the dangerous condition was open and obvious cannot relieve the landowner” of the burden to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the property in a safe condition … .

In this case, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant’s submissions did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the hole was not inherently dangerous. No evidence was submitted that the hole was too small to create an inherently dangerous condition … . Even if the condition were open and obvious—and it is by no means clear that it was—that would relate to the issue of comparative fault, and not absolve the landowner of all fault … . Kastin v Ohr Moshe Torah Inst., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01582, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

​

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITHE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANKS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING UNDER GTLF’S SUPERVISION; GTLF HAD HIRED ATRIUM, PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER, TO HANDLE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING PAYROLL AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM ATRIUM FOR A WORK-RELATED INJURY; GTLF, AS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER, CANNOT BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DEFECT IN THIS SIDEWALK/TREE-WELL SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant in Medical Malpractice Action Should Have Been Allowed to Amend His Answer to Add Statute of Limitations Affirmative Defense
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY THE POLICE DEFENDANTS, COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S VEHICLE; THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE OMISSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THE ISSUE SURVIVES THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Injured at Work and Again When the Ambulance Taking Him to the Hospital Was Involved in an Accident—Exclusive-Remedy Aspect of Workers’ Compensation Did Not Preclude a Negligence Suit Stemming from the Ambulance Accident

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

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, SERVED THREE YEARS... SANCTIONS PROPERLY IMPOSED FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).