You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY...
,

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s deposition testimony adequately identified the causes of his staircase slip and fall and raised a question of fact about the defendant property owner’s constructive notice of the condition of the staircase. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner . . . who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . “[A] defendant moving for summary judgment can [also] make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of the plaintiff’s fall without engaging in speculation” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall without resorting to speculation … . In support of her motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, wherein he testified that he could not see where he was stepping because of poor lighting conditions in the stairwell, and as he attempted to place his left foot on a step, either the handrail shook or his foot slipped on the carpet, and he felt himself going backward. As the plaintiff’s left foot was in the air, his right foot slipped backwards because the carpet was worn. As such, the plaintiff identified the cause of his fall as a combination of the lighting, the handrail, and the poor condition of the carpet. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall … . In addition, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that she did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . Fitzmorris v Alexander, 2025 NY Slip Op 03044, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: If a plaintiff identifies a combination of factors which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall, the plaintiff has not failed to identify the proximate cause of the fall. Here plaintiff alleged poor lighting and either the handrail shook or his foot slipped on the worn carpet. Those allegations were deemed to have sufficiently identified the proximate cause(s) of the fall and to have raised a question of fact about defendant property owner’s constructive notice of the condition of the staircase.

 

You might also like
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (SECOND DEPT).
Passenger in Car of Which Plaintiff Lost Control in Snowy Conditions Entitled to Summary Judgment
PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT EXISTED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.
COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective—It Did Not Include Any Offense (or Any Lesser-Included) Which Was in the Original Felony Complaint
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH EITHER THE “GENERAL CAUSATION” OR “SPECIFIC CAUSATION” FRYE CRITERIA IN THIS MOLD-INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS ACTING AS THE OWNER’S AGENT OR THAT IT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE WORK; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED... THE BANK’S UNILATERAL ATTEMPT TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IS...