You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined the defendant owner (In LIne) and restaurant manager (Spanburgh) did not demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff, a restaurant patron, was injured when he stepped in a hole in the front lawn of the property while playing a game (apparently sanctioned by the restaurant):

Defendants failed to establish that In Line did not create the hole in its front lawn by submitting Spanburgh’s deposition testimony and affidavit, because Spanburgh did not state that the lawn was inspected after it was last maintained by the outside company In Line had hired to mow the grass. They also failed to satisfy their initial burden to show that In Line lacked actual notice of the hole in its lawn, because they submitted no evidence that its employees and the outside company had received no complaints about the defect prior to the incident and that there were no similar accidents at the subject location … . The fact that Spanburgh testified and averred that he did not receive any complaints about the condition of the lawn does not establish that In Line lacked actual notice, because he did not state that he was working when the accident happened.

Defendants also failed to satisfy their initial burden to show that In Line lacked constructive notice of the hole in its lawn, because Spanburgh’s testimony and averment that he would inspect the entire premises every time the restaurant was open is insufficient to establish when the lawn was last checked before the accident … . Clarkin v In Line Rest. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02004, 1st Dept 3-21-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)

You might also like
BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE NOTES CONSOLIDATED BY A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) CONFERRED STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES WAS NOT REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF’S FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE ACTION; THE CAUSE OF ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE PRIOR ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised by Competing Expert Affidavits Re: Proximate Cause
DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT THE AREA OF THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED INTO AN UNGUARDED VENT HOLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE VENT COVER HAD BEEN REPLACED, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THE INSPECTION WOULD BE FRUITLESS, OR THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE ANNOYANCE, EXPENSE, EMBARRASSMENT OR OTHER PREJUDICE (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
ONCE THE CITY TAX LIENS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED PAYMENT TO THE CITY, INSTEAD OF THE LIENHOLDER, IS NOT APPLIED TO THE DEBT (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS INNOCENCE AT TRIAL, HAS A PENDING APPEAL AND ASSERTS HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE SORA PROCEEDING, THE SORA COURT SHOULD NOT ASSESS POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 12 FOR FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
COUNSEL’S CONDUCT WAS NOT FRIVILOUS OR DESIGNED TO DELAY; COUNSEL WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE SANCTIONED; THE JUDGE DID NOT INDICATE WHY THE AMOUNT OF THE SANCTION WAS APPROPRIATE, $100 SANCTION REVERSED (FIRST 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

NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED... FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S...