You are here: / / PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DIS...
,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall:

During his 50-h hearing, the injured plaintiff testified that he was walking on the sidewalk and was about to cross the street when his right foot caught on “some sort of stone,” causing him to fall. He did not see the stone before the accident, but after he fell, he looked and saw stones embedded in the earth around a tree, which caught his foot. At his deposition, however, the injured plaintiff testified that as he was about to cross the street, he was paying attention to traffic and his foot “hit something” causing him to lose his balance and fall. This time, he identified a raised portion of the sidewalk, approximately three feet away from the tree, as the cause of his fall. He distinguished this area from the cobblestones around the tree and testified that he did not make contact with the cobblestones, as he was “further down, to the side of the tree.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the injured plaintiff’s own contradictory testimony does not create a question of fact … . Rather, it demonstrates that he is unable to identify the cause of his fall and any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation … . Vojvodic v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02085, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)

You might also like
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE WAS SO CLOSE AS TO CONSTITUTE AN IMMEDIATE HAZARD WHEN DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S LANE OF TRAFFIC; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE PROSECUTOR’S EXCLUSION OF A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT.
PLAINTIFF WAS PROVIDED WITH A LADDER WITHOUT RUBBER FEET WHICH SLID CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint a Temporary Administrator after Defendant’s Death Properly Denied—Relevant Law Explained
ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
Gaps in Treatment Precluded “Continuous Treatment Doctrine” in Medical Malpractice Suit—Action Time-Barred
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PREEXISTING SNOW AND ICE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FALL.

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

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION,... WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION...