You are here: / / THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING...
,

THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; ONLY EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES WAS PRESENTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant shopping mall in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the oily patch in the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell. Plaintiff testified she saw the oily patch on the way into the mall and slipped and fell an hour later. The defendant presented evidence of its general cleaning and inspection practices, but did not demonstrate when the are was last cleaned or inspected:

To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … . “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice”… .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall . The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she saw the oily patch on the ground of the parking lot on her way into the shopping mall, approximately an hour before she slipped and fell after exiting the mall. The defendant’s property manager only testified about the defendant’s general cleaning and inspection procedures. Armenta v AAC Cross County Mall, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04355, Second Dept. 8-23-23

Practice Point: For years slip and fall cases were reversed on this ground (no proof when the area was last cleaned or inspected) every week, now the reversals have slowed to a trickle but still …

 

You might also like
THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A BAR OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WERE NOT MET; THE OVER $2,000,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
CYNTHIA G SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY CONFINED BASED UPON A FINDING SHE WAS MENTALLY ILL IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING; THE FINDING WAS MADE BASED SOLELY UPON CYNTHIA G’S BEHAVIOR IN THE COURTROOM; ALTHOUGH CYNTHIA G HAS BEEN RELEASED THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS’ CONDOMINIUM WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE FORCING THEM TO LIVE ELSEWHERE FOR A YEAR; THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF DID NOT MAKE TIMELY REPAIRS DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANTS OF THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE COMMON CHARGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT WHO WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING UNDER GTLF’S SUPERVISION; GTLF HAD HIRED ATRIUM, PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER, TO HANDLE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING PAYROLL AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM ATRIUM FOR A WORK-RELATED INJURY; GTLF, AS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER, CANNOT BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISMISSAL OF A FORELCOSURE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS NOT AN EXPRESS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION DID NOT VALIDLY ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE, HERE, THE 2013 FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE WAIVED; THE JUDGE, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION ON THAT GROUND; PETITION REINSTATED (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

TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT... PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT...