You are here: / BASED ON THE UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY, THE TERM “OCCURRENCE”...

Search Results

/ ,

BASED ON THE UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY, THE TERM “OCCURRENCE” REFERRED TO EACH TIME A MEMBER OF THE CLASS WAS INJURED, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE; THEREFORE THE DEDUCTIBLE WAS TRIGGERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH INJURED CLASS MEMBER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the policy-term “occurrence,” for purposes of applying the deductible for each “occurrence,” meant each time a member of the class was injured, and not the single injury to the class as a whole. The class action was brought by an arrestee who was illegally strip-searched at the county jail. 800 others similarly searched made up the class. The insurance policy taken out by the county included a deductible of $10,000 for each “occurrence.” The county argued that the injury to the class as a whole was a single occurrence and triggered only one $10,000 deductible. The court held that, based on the plain language of the policy, each strip-search constituted a separate occurrence. Therefore the $10,000 deductible applied to each member of the class (making the county liable for all the damage payments):

 

The plain language of the insurance policy indicates that the improper strip searches of the arrestees over a four-year period constitute separate occurrences under the policies at issue. Contrary to the County’s argument, the definition of “occurrence” in the policies is not ambiguous. The policy defines ‘occurrence’ as “an event, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results in . . . ‘personal injury’ . . . by any person or organization and arising out of the insured’s law enforcement duties” (emphasis added). Thus, the language of the insurance policies makes clear that it covers personal injuries to an individual person as a result of a harmful condition. The definition does not permit the grouping of multiple individuals who were harmed by the same condition, unless that group is an organization, which is clearly not the case here. The harm each experienced was as an individual, and each of the strip searches constitutes a single occurrence … . Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v County of Rensselaer, 2016 NY Slip Op 01001, CtApp 2-11-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (CLASS ACTION, DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)/CLASS ACTION (INSURANCE POLICY DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CLASS ACTION, COUNTY’S INSURANCE POLICY DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)

/

FOR PURPOSES OF THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK PERIOD FOR SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender because the operative prior conviction occurred outside the 10-year look-back period. Defendant was convicted of assault and sentenced to probation in 1994. He subsequently violated probation and was sentenced to incarceration in 1995. The lower courts used the 1995 sentence, which was within the 10-year look-back. But the Court of Appeals determined the 1994 sentence controlled. The revocation of probation in 1995 did not annul the original 1994 sentence:

 

The People would have us believe that sentence was imposed with respect to the prior conviction twice — once, in 1994, when defendant was subject to a period of probation through the original sentence, and again in 1995, when defendant was subject to a period of incarceration through the resentence. To be sure, the period of probation was imposed as part of a revocable sentence (Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [a] [i]), which is a “tentative [punishment in] that it may be altered or revoked” (Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [b]). For all other purposes, however, a revocable sentence “shall be deemed to be a final judgment of conviction” (id.), and where “the part of the sentence that provides for probation is revoked, the court must sentence [a defendant] to imprisonment or to [a] sentence of imprisonment and probation” (Penal Law § 60.01 [4] [emphasis added]). The legislature’s reference to the revocation of the part of the sentence imposing probation suggests that the substitution of a different punishment — such as incarceration — for the probation a defendant has violated does not constitute a new sentence, but rather a replacement of the original, conditional penalty reflected in the sentence.

Put differently, to revoke a penalty of probation does not equate to annulling a sentence. People v Thompson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00997, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)/SENTENCING (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)/SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS/(TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)

/ ,

TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RELIEVED DEFENSE COUNSEL ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS BECAUSE A POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge did not err by relieving defendant’s attorney, over defendant’s objection, on conflict of interest grounds.  The defense attorney, Fisher, worked for New York County Defender Services (NYCDS). Another NYCDS attorney had represented Stephens, who was involved in the same incident which led to the charges against the defendant. Fisher had no knowledge of the facts of Stephens’ case, but, before he learned of the conflict, Fisher had been looking for Stephens during his investigation as a possible witness. Fisher was instructed by his supervisors at NYCDS he could not question Stephens, call Stephens as a witness, or cross-examine Stephens if the People called him. The defendant told the trial judge he was willing to waive the conflict, because he wanted Fisher to act as his attorney, but he wanted to call Stephens as a witness. The trial judge determined the conflict warranted the assignment of new counsel:

 

… [T]he Appellate Division erred in holding that the trial court abused its discretion. Supreme Court appropriately balanced defendant’s countervailing rights, based on the information it had at the time, and reasonably concluded that Fisher could not effectively represent defendant due to NYCDS’s representation of Stephens and the duty of loyalty Fisher’s supervisors were asserting toward that former client. People v Watson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00998, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined decedent’s representative had raised a question of fact whether the driver of a city dump truck was negligent. Decedent was a passenger in a car which struck the back of the dump struck which was either stopped or coming to a stop in the left lane of the highway. Although the driver of the truck testified a tire had just blown, causing the truck to veer to the left, the truck was still moving when struck, and the emergency flashing lights were on, the sole eyewitness testified the truck was parked and its lights were not on:

 

The City made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that its truck was lawfully stopped on the highway due to an emergency (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1202[a][1][j]) when it was struck in the rear by the Cadena vehicle. However, in opposition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, affording him the benefit of every favorable inference …, and applying the Noseworthy doctrine (see Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76, 80) to hold him to a lesser standard of proof, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the truck driver exercised reasonable care in warning other drivers of the hazard posed by his disabled vehicle. Generally, when one causes a public road to become obstructed, there is a duty to “exercise[ ] the care that a reasonably prudent person should have under all the circumstances” … . The exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances may include warning other motorists of the hazards posed by the obstruction … . Typically, whether reasonable care was exercised is a question of fact … .

The City’s truck driver testified at a deposition that the truck’s headlights were on, that after the blowout of the tire he activated the truck’s emergency lights, and that the accident occurred within seconds of veering into the left lane while he was still moving 10 to 15 miles per hour. However, the sole eyewitness to the accident, Weiguo Qu, indicated that he saw the truck “parked” in the left lane of a highway with its lights off and no flashing lights. In light of this conflicting evidence, triable issues of fact exist regarding, among other things, whether the City’s truck driver failed to exercise reasonable care to warn other motorists of the obstruction and, if so, whether such failure was a proximate cause of the accident… . Pinilla v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00953, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

EMINENT DOMAIN (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)/LANDLORD-TENANT (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)/TRADE FIXTURES (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)

/ , ,

FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE SCARRING WAS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE SIGNING OF THE CONSENT FORM, AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT SCARRING, REQUIRED DENIAL OF PHYSICIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendant physician (Barazani) was not entitled to summary judgment on the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, despite the plaintiff’s signing of a consent form. Although the consent form mentioned scarring as a possibility, there was no showing the defendant discussed scarring with the plaintiff before the consent form was signed. In addition, there was no showing plaintiff would have gone through with the surgery had scarring been adequately discussed. [Another example of the need for a defendant seeking summary judgment to affirmatively address every possible theory of recovery.]:

 

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent was the proximate cause of the injury (see Public Health Law § 2805-d[1]…).

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent. The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The consent form provided by the defendants and signed by the plaintiff warned generally that there was a risk of scarring after the biopsy was conducted. However, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and Barazani, which was submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, revealed a factual dispute as to whether Barazani properly advised the plaintiff of the risk of scarring before she signed the form … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that if the plaintiff had received full disclosure, she still would have consented to the procedure … . Schussheim v Barazani, 2016 NY Slip Op 00958, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the driver of a car involved in an accident was acting within the scope of his employment at the time. Therefore Supreme Court erred when it dismissed the complaint against the employer, alleging liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Here the employee was driving to the employer’s house, which had been used as the employer’s office, when the accident occurred:

 

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of his or her employment … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business” … . “Conversely, where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .

“An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his employer, or if his act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “[T]he employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “[B]ecause the determination of whether a particular act was within the scope of the servant’s employment is so heavily dependent on factual considerations, the question is ordinarily one for the jury” … . Brandford v Singh, 2016 NY Slip Op 00920, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)
/ , ,

SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY ENTERTAINED; ABSENCE OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST POLICE.

In finding the defendant-city’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted, the Second Department noted that, although successive summary judgment motions are disfavored, the defendant-city’s second motion was properly entertained. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of the police stemming from an attack on her by her husband and the shooting of her husband by the police. Prior to the attack and the shooting, plaintiff had gone to the police station seeking protection but was sent home. The negligence action against the city/police was dismissed on governmental immunity grounds because no “special relationship” between plaintiff and the police had been demonstrated:

 

That branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment should have been granted. Although successive motions for summary judgment are disfavored, a subsequent summary judgment motion may be properly entertained when it is substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts … .

Generally, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection” … . When a cause of action alleging negligence is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality is exercising a governmental function, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the municipality owed a special duty to the injured person … . A special duty is “a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,” and “is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . The elements required to establish a special relationship are: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the police did not assume an affirmative duty to act on Dawes’ behalf … . Graham v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00932, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/POLICE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

/ , ,

AFFIDAVITS IDENTIFYING THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS; IN THE CONTEXT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT’S FUNCTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY.

In this slip and fall case, the Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have rejected affidavits submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to a summary judgment motion because of inconsistencies. The affidavits were from witnesses who saw plaintiff fall and who were able to identify the cause of plaintiff’s fall. In the context of a summary judgment motion, assessing credibility is not the court’s function:

 

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, which demonstrated that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . However, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing on this ground, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s submissions included affidavits from two individuals who witnessed the accident and identified the cause of her fall … . The Supreme Court erred in rejecting these two eyewitness affidavits on the ground that they gave inconsistent accounts of the accident. “It is not the court’s function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” …, and any inconsistencies in the affidavits of the two eyewitnesses did not render them both incredible as a matter of law, but rather, raised issues of credibility to be resolved by the factfinder … . McRae v Venuto, 2016 NY Slip Op 00944, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)/EVIDENCE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)

/

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED, AND FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners were not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The defendants had directed plaintiff to a parking lot as a smoking area (where plaintiff fell). Therefore, defendants were obliged to make sure the parking lot was adequately illuminated. The defendants’ failure to affirmatively demonstrate the area was adequately illuminated, and their failure to demonstrate they did not create the dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it required denial of their summary judgment motion. [Yet another example of the necessity of affirmatively addressing every possible theory of recovery available to a plaintiff in a defense summary judgment motion.]:

 

… [H]aving directed guests to use the rear parking lot as a smoking area, they had a duty to provide adequate illumination … . The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the parking lot was adequately illuminated … . Contrary to the defendants’ further contention, the plaintiff was able to identify what had caused her to fall … . Additionally, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition of the parking lot or have actual or constructive notice thereof … . Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Steed v MVA Enters., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00960, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/SLIP AND FALL (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

/

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS EVERY THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant in this slip and fall case. The plaintiffs had sufficiently identified the cause of the fall (uneven floor). Defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate the uneven floor was not a dangerous condition, and further failed to affirmatively demonstrate she had no notice of the condition and she did not create the condition. [Once again, a defendant must affirmatively address all possible theories of recovery in a motion for summary judgment.]:

 

To impose liability upon a defendant for a plaintiff’s injuries, there must be evidence showing the existence of a dangerous or defective condition, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time … . Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the circumstances of each case, and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject staircase was not in a defective condition and that she did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of such condition … . Since the defendant failed to meet her burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers. Davis v Sutton, 2016 NY Slip Op 00923, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY RAISED BY COMPLAINT)/SLIP AND FALL (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY RAISED BY COMPLAINT)

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