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
CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER.
Burden of Proof for Relocation with Child Not Met
Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption of Risk Precluded Suit Based Upon Falling Off an Exercise Ball
PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN A COLLISION WHICH PUSHED HIS CAR INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WHICH WAS PARKED ALONG THE CURB IN VIOLATION OF PARKING REGULATIONS; THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
REQUEST FOR THE NAME OF THE MOHEL WHO PERFORMED CIRCUMCISION ON AN INFANT WHO BECAME INFECTED WITH HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS PROPERLY DENIED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Unsigned Deposition Transcripts and Party Admission in Police Report Admissible as Evidence in Support of Summary Judgment Motion
Refusing to Provide Relevant Information to an Inmate Required Annulment of the Determination.

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...