You are here: / / IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES...
,

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant City of New York did not demonstrate when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was last cleaned or inspected. Therefore the city did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish … that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous snow and ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion did not show when the staircase was last cleaned or inspected in relation to when the subject accident occurred, but rather merely described their general cleaning and inspection practices for the staircase … . Islam v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03685. Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Once again an appellate court reiterates that proof of general cleaning or inspection practices does not prove a lack of constructive notice of the condition which caused a slip and fall.

 

You might also like
Trial Court Properly Amended Pleadings Sua Sponte and Properly Allowed Plaintiff to Reopen the Case to Present Additional Evidence of Damages
PETITIONER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL PROCEEDING AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES; HOWEVER, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO LEGAL COSTS INCURRED IN PROSECUTING THE PETITIONER’S CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, SO-CALLED “FEES ON FEES” (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO VACATE THE ADOPTION OF HER CHILD BY HER FORMER HUSBAND PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) BECAUSE THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO CHILDREN REMOVED FROM A PARENT’S CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).
FEDERAL TAX RETURNS AND EMAILS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211 (A)(1); THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Unambiguous Limitation of Liability to $10,000 Should Have Been Enforced
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (SECOND DEPT).
Worker Taking Onsite Measurements for Offsite Fabrication Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
WHERE RELEVANT FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE IN A CUSTODY MATTER, A HEARING IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PURSUANT TO THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION,” THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT... THE AFFIDAVITS AND REAL ESTATE CONTRACT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO...