You are here: / / THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES DIRECTED TRUCKS TO DRIVE...

THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES DIRECTED TRUCKS TO DRIVE OVER THE DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendants, whose businesses were across the street from the cracked sidewalk where plaintiff fell, created the defect. There was evidence that truck servicing defendants’ businesses drove over the sidewalk to back in to defendants’ loading dock:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants committed an affirmative act of negligence that resulted in the creation of the dangerous condition on the sidewalk … . In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted the deposition testimony of an individual who had resided next door to the defendants’ premises for nearly 56 years. The neighbor testified that the street on which he lived was a dead-end street that was mostly residential, and that the drivers of 18-wheel tractor-trailers that made deliveries to the defendants’ business, while maneuvering into the driveway of the premises, frequently drove onto the sidewalk across the street, thereby creating the condition that caused the plaintiff to trip and fall. The neighbor had, on numerous occasions, observed [defendants’ employees] directing truck drivers onto the sidewalk while assisting them in backing up to the loading dock. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the actions of the defendants caused or created the hazardous sidewalk condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s accident … . Abramson v Janowski’s Hamburgers, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02293, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: Here there was evidence the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, which was across the street from defendants’ businesses, was driven over by trucks making deliveries to defendants’ businesses, creating the defect.

 

You might also like
CUSTODY MODIFICATION PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL CALL COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED, THE LIGHTER BURDEN OF PROOF PURSUANT TO THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRING JUSTICE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE FORMULA FOR DETERMINING TEMPORARY SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING WITHOUT MAKING A FINDING THAT USING THE FORMULA WOULD RESULT IN AN UNFAIR AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FIRST “NAIL AND MAIL” AFFIDAVIT BY THE PROCESS SERVER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED MAILING; A SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH DESCRIBED THE MAILING; THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA AND DID NOT HAVE A PRACTICAL ABILITY TO OBJECT, THEREFORE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIES, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
Forum Selection Clause in a “Release of Liability” Form Is Enforceable

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

THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE... THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING...