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
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CONDITION WAS CREATED BY THE LESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE OF AN AGREEMENT CREATING A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.
ALTHOUGH FATHER FILED A PETITION FOR CUSTODY AFTER GRANDMOTHER WAS AWARDED CUSTODY, FATHER’S APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF COUNSEL WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment
DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements for Indefinite Tolling of 30-Day Period During Which a No-Fault Carrier Must Determine Whether to Pay or Deny a Claim Explained
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES.
Question of Fact Whether Owner of Servient State Had Duty to Maintain Easement in Safe Condition/Easement Used for Servient-Estate-Owner’s Own Purposes

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).