You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS,...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff (Ebner) alleged she did not see the single step down which caused her to fall. The Second Department found that defendant did not prove the step was open and obvious. The handrail was not demonstrated to be a sufficient visual cue:

​

Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted, among other things, Ebner’s deposition testimony, deposition testimony of certain of the defendant’s employees, and an expert affidavit. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, Ebner identified the cause of her fall as her inability to see the single step on the walkway she was traversing … . The defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the step constituted a dangerous condition or whether the subject step was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law … . The affidavit of the defendant’s expert failed to establish, as a matter of law, that a handrail that the defendant contends was adjacent to the walkway on the date of the subject accident provided a sufficient visual cue to alert pedestrians to the presence of the step. Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, it failed to demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition prior to the subject accident … . Ross v Bretton Woods Home Owners Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04482, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL ( DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER’S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE OUT–OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN SLIP AND FALL CASE.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).
A SINGLE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND CONVICTION FOUR YEARS BEFORE DID NOT SUPPORT A TEN POINT ASSESSMENT FOR UNSATISFACTORY CONDUCT; RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TERMINATED BY A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE WITH PREJUDICE, THE STIPULATION CANNOT BE VACATED BY A MOTION, A PLENARY ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).
AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (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

AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE... THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO...