You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS; DEFENDANTS’...
,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS UNKNOWN; IN ADDITION, THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted because the cause of the fall was unknown. Plaintiff’s decedent was found dead at the bottom of the stairs

[Defendants] moved … for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … contending … that the plaintiffs did not know what caused the incident to occur and that it would be speculative to assume that any defect in the staircase caused the decedent to fall. … The plaintiffs opposed the motion, contending … that the Noseworthy doctrine applied and that circumstantial evidence showed that the decedent fell because the staircase connecting the first floor to the basement of the restaurant/bar was in a defective condition ,,, ,  …

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them by demonstrating that the plaintiffs could not identify what caused the decedent to fall … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Noseworthy doctrine does not apply to the circumstances of this case since the defendants’ knowledge as to the cause of the decedent’s accident is no greater than that of the plaintiffs … . Even accepting the alleged defects identified in the plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the decedent’s fall was proximately caused by those allegedly unsafe conditions … . Atehortua v Jaramillo, 2021 NY Slip Op 03569, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

You might also like
Criteria for Landlord’s Liability in a Dog Bite Case Explained
APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST; TROOPER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE PETITIONER OPERATED HIS MOTORCYCLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE, EVEN THOUGH THE INITIAL ACTION WAS TIMELY ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION IN CPLR 205(A), THE SECOND ACTION, COMMENCED AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST FOR LACK OF STANDING, CAN BE DEEMED TIMELY UNDER A SECOND CPLR 205(A) SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION (SECOND DEPT).​ ​
BECAUSE THE FOIL REQUESTS REQUIRED THE RESPONDENT TO CREATE NEW DOCUMENTS, THE REQUESTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON A ROOF WHEN HE ALLEGEDLY CONTACTED AN ELECTRIC WIRE LEADING TO THE HOME AND WAS KILLED; THE UTILITIES’ (CON EDISON’S) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ON THE GROUND IT OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT RECEIVED AND RETAINED THE INVOICES; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACCOUNT STATED 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

A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT WARRANT AN UPWARD... PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO SUE UNDER AN INSTALLMENT CONTRACT...