You are here: / / MISSING CHAIR IN FRONT OF A SLOT MACHINE IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NONACTIONABLE,...

MISSING CHAIR IN FRONT OF A SLOT MACHINE IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NONACTIONABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO SIT IN FRONT OF A MACHINE WHERE THERE WAS NO CHAIR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the absence of a chair in front of a slot machine was open and obvious and nonactionable:

… [P]laintiff was injured when she fell while attempting to sit down at a slot machine that did not have a chair. Defendants showed that the missing chair was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous by submitting videotape footage showing the subject slot machine without a chair. Plaintiff also testified that she had previously noticed chairs missing from slot machines at the casino, and that she had been seated next to the subject machine that was without a chair for 20 to 25 minutes before her fall … .

Plaintiff’s opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her argument that slot machines are distracting to the point of being all-encompassing, is unavailing, as she did not provide any probative evidence as to how distracted a person becomes when she or he uses slot machines. Plaintiff’s testimony that she was distracted by the slot machines does not lead to a conclusion that they are so distracting that their mere existence makes an open and obvious condition such as a missing chair any less open and obvious … . Furthermore, that a similar accident apparently occurred at defendant casino does not lead to the conclusion that a missing chair is a latent or inherently dangerous condition. Vasquez v Yonkers Racing Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02461, First Dept 4-2-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS REPUDIATED THE HOME-RENOVATION CONTRACT WHEN THEY SUBMITTED A PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND THREATENED TO STOP WORK IF PLAINTIFFS DID NOT AGREE; THE REPUDIATION ENTITLED PLAINTIFFS TO DAMAGES FOR TOTAL BREACH (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED.
THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (FIRST DEPT).
THE POLICE WERE “ACTING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE FUNCTION” WHEN THEY SEARCHED THE INJURED DEFENDANT AND FOUND A CARTRIDGE; DEFENDANT WAS DRIFTING IN AND OUT OF CONSCIOUSNESS; THE POLICE PROPERLY SEARCHED HIS POCKETS FOR IDENTIFICATION; SUPPRESSION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE NO-FAULT INSURER BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVES A CLAIM FORM FROM THE MEDICAL PROVIDER.
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Summary Judgment Motion Served Within 60 Days of the Filing of the Note of Issue but Filed on the 61st Day Deemed Untimely
Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant

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

UNLOADING STEEL PLATES USED TO COVER EXCAVATED AREAS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE... PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED...