You are here: / / CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO...
,

CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined a slip and fall complaint against a contractor which repaired exterior stairs was properly dismissed. The court explained the three theories under which a contract can result in a duty of care owed to a third party and the requirements of a defendant-contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this context:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to that general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . ” As part of its prima facie showing, a contracting defendant is only required to negate the applicability of those Espinal exceptions that were expressly pleaded by the plaintiff or expressly set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars'” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged facts in his complaint and bills of particulars in support of his assertion that the defendants created or exacerbated the alleged dangerous conditions and, thus, launched a force or instrument of harm. Therefore, in support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the defendants were required to establish, prima facie, that they did not create or exacerbate the alleged dangerous conditions … . The defendants met this burden and established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they neither created nor exacerbated the dangerous conditions that allegedly caused the plaintiff to sustain injuries. The parties’ deposition testimony established, prima facie, that the defendants did not leave the subject step or the handrail in a condition more dangerous than they had found them … . Barone v Nickerson, 2016 NY Slip Op 05107, 2nd Dept 6-29-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT (CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
Labor Law 240(1) Action Not Implicated by Portion of Ceiling Falling
CALCULATION OF ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY STEMMING FROM A DEGREE EARNED DURING MARRIAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOCATING MARITAL PROPERTY IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER TO ENCROACH ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS FILED; THE RELATED NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THEY MAY CONSTITUTE “CONTINUING WRONGS” (SECOND DEPT). ​
“Serious Physical Injury” Element of Gang Assault Not Supported by Legally Sufficient Evidence
THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT NEVER CONSENTED TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SERVED ON THE PURPORTED SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, WAS NEVER SERVED UPON DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE NULLIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (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

FRYE HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER “OTHER UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC”... VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT...