You are here: / / ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN...

ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the rope (connected to a tree and a metal stanchion in a building atrium) which caused plaintiff to trip and fall was a non-actionable open and obvious condition:

[Defendant] moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing that the subject metal stanchions and connecting rope were open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous. The Supreme Court denied [defendant’s] motion.

[Defendant] met its prima facie burden by showing that the subject rope and stanchions, which were known to the plaintiff, were open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact… . LeComples v More Specialized Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07298, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA; MATTER REMITTED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND A REPORT TO THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ITS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Finding of Neglect of One Child by Consent Is Admissible In a Derivative Neglect Proceeding Re: Another Child—Criteria for Derivative Neglect Explained
THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION CAN BE REMEDIED BY A MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER AND BY RAISING THE DEFENSE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMSSED AS TIME-BARRED; RPAPL 1304 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, NOT A STATUTORY PROHIBITION WHICH WOULD TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE NEGOTIATED PLEA REQUIRED NO POST-PLEA ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AFTER THE PLEA BUT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS AND THE RECORDS SEALED; THE POST-PLEA ARRESTS WERE THEREFORE A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SENTENCING JUDGE (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

PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN... ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE...