You are here: / / FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH...

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall case should have been dismissed. Although plaintiff alleged she slipped on a marble floor, she did not know the cause of her fall:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . Scimone v LT Propco, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05915, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

You might also like
THE PARTY SEEKING A CONTEMPT FINDING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ONE COURT ORDER AND THE OTHER COURT ORDER DID NOT EXPRESS AN UNEQUIVOCAL MANDATE; CONTEMPT FINDING REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RIGHT OF SEPULCHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET WAS A MISTAKE WHICH HAD BEEN CORRECTED, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS UNDER AN “AT-WILL EMPLOYEE” THEORY WAS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE ALLEGED THE OTHER VEHICLE CHANGED LANES ABRUPTLY AND CAME TO A STOP IN FRONT OF HIM; THAT CONSTITUTED A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION WHICH RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF PLACED THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER ON SMALL LANDSCAPING ROCKS WHICH GAVE WAY CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT OF FATHER’S 14-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER; BUT THAT EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF DERIVATIVE NEGLECT RE: FATHER’S YOUNGER DAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPPRACTICE ACTION WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY,... LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE...