You are here: / / THE 15-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING THE ESCALATOR IN DEFENDANT’S...
,

THE 15-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING THE ESCALATOR IN DEFENDANT’S THEATER IMPROPERLY WHEN HE FELL OFF BACKWARDS TO THE FLOOR; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A DEFECTIVE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE; THE THEATER’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury was not the result of a defective condition on defendant movie theater’s property. The 15-year-old plaintiff was sitting on one rail of an escalator with his feet on the other rail and leaning back against the wall as the escalator descended. But the wall came to an end halfway down and plaintiff fell backwards to the floor:

“In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of an allegedly defective condition upon property, it must be established that a defective condition existed and that the landowner affirmatively created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the escalator and the adjacent wall were not in violation of any applicable statutes or regulations and that they maintained their premises in a reasonably safe condition … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants violated their common-law duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . The affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert was speculative and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … .  Boris L. v AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05080, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s fall from an escalator was caused by the improper way he was riding the escalator, not by any defect in the property. The property owner’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

You might also like
NO EVIDENCE ICE ON WHICH PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS FORMED BEFORE THE STORM, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE (SECOND DEPT).
FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT SUPPLY THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT; HERE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY BUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE REMAINED VIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PRIVATE CONTRACT DISPUTES, UNIQUE TO THE PARTIES, ARE NOT COVERED BY GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 OR 35O WHICH ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO CONSUMER-ORIENTED CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE OMITTED A PORTION OF THE BURGLARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE PROOF REQUIRED BY THE INCOMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT CLEAR-CUT AND DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE BEFORE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; HERE THE FAILURE TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE RENDERED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained (Not Met Here)—Property Owner Could Not Seek Indemnification from Independent Contractor Re: Dangerous Condition on the Property

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL... IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS...