You are here: / EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S STAIRWAY FALL RESULTED FROM A MISSTEP, EVIDENCE...

Search Results

/

EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S STAIRWAY FALL RESULTED FROM A MISSTEP, EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS “LOOKING FOR A HANDRAIL” RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this stairway slip and fall case, determined that plaintiff’s testimony that he was “looking for a handrail” at the time he fell was sufficient to raise a question of fact whether the absence of a handrail was a proximate cause of the fall. Even if a fall is the result of a misstep, the absence of a handrail could be a proximate cause of the fall:

… [E]ven if a plaintiff’s fall is precipitated by a misstep, where the plaintiff testifies that he or she reached out to try to stop his or her fall, the absence of a handrail, if required by law, may raise an issue of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail was a proximate cause of his or her injury” … . In contrast, the absence of a handrail will not create an issue of fact where the plaintiff does not offer testimony demonstrating “that she [or he] reached out for a handrail either before or during her [or his] fall” or otherwise showing that “the lack of handrails contributed to [the] accident” … .

… Although he was not sure what caused him to lose his balance, the injured plaintiff testified that he was “looking for a handrail” before descending the final set of steps but observed that no handrails were available. “Even if the [injured] plaintiff’s fall was precipitated by a misstep,” his testimony indicating that he would have been using a handrail at the time of his accident had one been available was sufficient to create “an issue of fact as to whether the absence of [an accessible] handrail was a proximate cause of h[is] injur[ies]” … . Curto v Kahn Prop. Owner, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01290, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: In a stairway-fall case, if the plaintiff indicates they reached for a handrail at the time of the fall, that raises a question of fact whether the absence of a handrail was a proximate cause of the fall, even if the fall was due to a misstep.

 

/

PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HER FOOT BECAME ENTANGLED IN CORDS OR TUBES CONNECTED TO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT IN A HOSPITAL ROOM; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CORDS OR TUBES WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tubes or cords attached to medical equipment in a neurologic intensive care unit which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall were not demonstrated to be “open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:”

“While a possessor of real property has a duty to maintain that property in a reasonably safe condition, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” … . “A condition is open and obvious if it is readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident” … . Moreover, “[a] condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . The question of whether a condition is open and obvious is usually a question of fact properly resolved by a jury … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition of the tubes or cords was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the circumstances surrounding the accident … . Butler v NYU Winthrop Hosp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01289, Second Dept 3-13-24\

Practice Point: Whether a condition is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous is usually a question for the jury. Here, in this slip and fall case, there was a question of fact whether cords or tubes connected to medical equipment constituted an open and obvious condition which was not inherently dangerous.

 

/ ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, STEPS WHICH DO NOT HAVE UNIFORM RISER HEIGHTS COULD CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHETHER A BUILDING CODE WAS VIOLATED; BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE SUBLESSEE COULD BE LIABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the steps which did not have uniform riser heights could constitute a dangerous condition for which the property owner and the sublessee could be liable:

Here, the record demonstrates that the riser heights of the steps were not uniform and that the top riser was approximately three inches taller than the bottom riser. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , we find that both the defendant owner and the defendant car service [the sublessee] failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that a dangerous condition did not exist on the steps or that the disparity in riser heights was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Amparo v Christopher One Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01286, 3-13-24

Practice Point: Steps which do not have uniform riser heights can constitute a dangerous condition which is  the proximate cause of a slip and fall under common law negligence principles, irrespective of whether the non-uniform riser heights violated a building code.

 

/ , , ,

PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Labor Law 241(6, 200 and common law negligence action, determined; (1) portions of a defendant’s summary judgment motion brought more than a month after the ordered deadline where properly dismissed as untimely; (2) the aspect of the untimely summary judgment motion which had been timely raised in another defendant’s summary judgment motion was properly considered; (3) the industrial code requires shutting down the electricity when worker’s are doing electrical work, therefore plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in an aerial bucket working on electrical lines when injured in an explosion:

Absent a “satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness,” constituting good cause for the delay, an untimely summary judgment motion must be denied without consideration of the merits … . However, “[a]n untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where a timely motion was made on nearly identical grounds” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants … failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), which was predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(3) and (4). 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(3) provides, among other things, that where the performance of the work may bring any person into physical or electrical contact with an electric power circuit, the employer “shall advise his [or her] employees of the locations of such lines, the hazards involved and the protective measures to be taken.” 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(4) requires, in pertinent part, that employees who may come into contact with an electric power circuit be protected against electric shock “by de-energizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding such circuit by effective insulation or other means” … . These regulations, which refer to the duty of employers, also impose a duty upon owners … . Wittenberg v Long Is. Power Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 01329

Practice Point: A summary judgment motion brought a month after the ordered deadline may be dismissed as untimely.

Practice Point: A portion of an untimely summary judgment motion which was timely raised by another defendant may be considered.

Practice Point: The industrial code provisions requiring that electrical power be shut down to protect electrical workers supported plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

/ , , , , ,

IN THIS ACTION BY A PROPERTY OWNER WHO LOST THE PROPERTY TO FORECLOSURE: (1) THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION; AND (2) THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF REAL PROPERTY LAW 441-C, AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversed Supreme Court in this action against real state brokers who, plaintiff alleged, did not provide plaintiff with proper documentation for a short sale of plaintiff’s property. The short sale was not approved by the lender and plaintiff lost the property in foreclosure. The Second Department determined: (1) the judge should not have granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground plaintiff suffered no damages because that issue was not raised by defendants in the motion; (2) the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action should not have been dismissed; (3) the Real Property Law section 441-c action alleging defendants acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” should not have been dismissed; and (4) the constructive-trust cause of action should not have been dismissed:

A court is generally limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion … . * * *

“[I]t is well settled that a real estate broker is a fiduciary with a duty of loyalty and an obligation to act in the best interests of the principal” … . * * *

… [T]he causes of action pursuant to Real Property Law § 441-c(1)(a) and 19 NYCRR 175.4, alleging that they acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” in dealing with the plaintiff and the property [should not have been dismissed].. … [T]here exists a private right of action for such offenses … . Perez v Mendicino, 2024 NY Slip Op 01323, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: A judge does not have the authority to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion papers;

Practice Point: Real estate brokers owe a fiduciary duty to their clients.

Practice Point: There exists a private right of action for a violation of Real Property Law 441-c for a real estate broker’s “untrustworthiness and incompetency.”

 

/ ,

BECAUSE MOTHER HAD RELINQUISHED CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE MATERNAL GRANDFATHER FOR MORE THAN 24 MONTHS, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING BEFORE RULING ON MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the maternal grandfather, who had custody of the child for more than 24 months with the consent of mother, demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances’ which warrant a “best interests of the child” hearing before ruling on mother’s petition for custody:

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72, “an ‘extended disruption of custody’ between the child and the parent ‘shall constitute an extraordinary circumstance'” … . “The statute defines ‘extended disruption of custody’ as including, but not limited to, ‘a prolonged separation of the respondent . . . and the child for at least twenty-four continuous months during which the parent voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child and the child resided in the household of the petitioner grandparent or grandparents'” … . “Where extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody” … .

… [T]he maternal grandfather sustained his burden of demonstrating the existence of extraordinary circumstances. The evidence at the hearing established a prolonged separation of the subject child from the mother for more than 24 continuous months, during which the mother voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child and the child resided in the household of the maternal grandfather … . Matter of Elisa F. v Daniel D., 2024 NY Slip Op 01306, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: Here the child, with mother’s consent, was in the custody of the maternal grandfather for more than 24 months before mother brought the petition for sole custody. The maternal grandfather’s custody of the child for mote than 24 months constituted “extraordinary circumstances” warranting a “best interests of the child” hearing before ruling on mother’s petition.

 

/ ,

NOT ALL REAR-END COLLISIONS ARE SOLELY THE FAULT OF THE REAR DRIVER; HERE PLAINTIFF, THE REAR DRIVER, RAISED CREDIBILITY ISSUES BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF IN THE POLICE REPORT AND AVERRING DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY WITHOUT USING A TURN SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, the driver of the car which rear-ended defendant’s car, raised a question of fact about the whether the defendant stopped suddenly without using a turn signal:

“There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” … , and a defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . “Not every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver. The frontmost driver also has the duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision” … .

… [T]he plaintiff raised questions of credibility, which are for the jury to determine … . The plaintiff disputed the content of his statement, as reflected in the police accident report, as well as the veracity of the defendant’s deposition testimony as to how the accident occurred. Specifically, the plaintiff disputed that the defendant utilized his left turn signal and averred that the defendant came to a sudden stop at the intersection. Kerper v Betancourt, 2024 NY Slip Op 01296, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: In this rear-end collision case, the plaintiff, the rear driver, raised credibility issues which can only be resolved by a jury. Plaintiff contradicted a statement attributed to him in the police report and averred that defendant stopped suddenly without using a turn signal. The rear driver in a rear-end collision is not always solely at fault.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER TO ENCROACH ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS FILED; THE RELATED NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THEY MAY CONSTITUTE “CONTINUING WRONGS” (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action was time-barred but the related nuisance and trespass actions constituted “continuing wrongs” and therefore were not time-barred. Plaintiff alleged defendant did construction work on defendant’s property which caused water to encroach on plaintiff’s property. Because the construction work was done more than three years before the action was filed, the negligence action was not timely:

The defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the negligence cause of action was barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214[4]) by submitting evidence that the allegedly negligent construction work performed on its property occurred in or around June 2012, more than four years prior to the commencement of this action … .

… Here, the acts of continuous nuisance and trespass alleged in the amended complaint may give rise to successive causes of action pursuant to the continuous wrong doctrine … . Jefferson v New Life Tabernacle, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01295, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: Here construction work on defendant’s land was alleged to have caused water to encroach on plaintiff’s property. The negligence action accrued when the construction work was done and was time-barred. But the related nuisance and trespass actions may constitute “continuing wrongs” which were not time-barred.

 

/ ,

AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDED BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL-AND-MAIL SERVICE; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff failed to show defendant Lopez was properly served at the traverse hearing. The default judgment against Lopez was vacated. The decisions provides a rare opportunity to look inside a traverse hearing:

During the traverse hearing, plaintiff’s process server testified that he posted the summons and complaint on the door of the subject premises located at 713 Prospect Avenue in the Bronx (the premises), after making four attempts to serve Lopez there. However, the process server also testified that while he was attempting to personally serve Lopez at the premises, which his employer had represented was her residence, someone at the premises told him Lopez did not live there. This testimony established that the nail-and-mail service of process on Lopez was insufficient because plaintiff’s process server did not first comply with the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) … . Upon obtaining information that Lopez did not reside at the premises, due diligence required the process server to investigate her whereabouts on the date of service and whether the service address was actually her dwelling place or usual place of abode before resorting to the alternative method of serving her with the summons and complaint by nail-and-mail service … . There is no evidence that the process server did so, and the affidavit of service simply states that the process server served Lopez at her “dwelling place/usual place of abode.” Casanova v Lopez, 2024 NY Slip Op 01269, Frist Dept 3-12-24

Practice Point: Here the process server was told defendant did not reside at the premises but he did not exercise due diligence (CPLR 308(4)) to find out where defendant did reside before resorting to nail-and-mail service. The default judgment against defendant was vacated.

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) FALLING-OBJECT CASE; BRICK WORK WAS BEING DONE ON THE BUILDING ABOVE WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BRICK; THERE WAS NO SAFETY NETTING TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLING OBJECTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this falling object case. Plaintiff was unloading a truck in a designated “delivery zone” near the building where bricks were being drilled out to accommodate the installation of windows. Plaintiff was struck on the head by a brick which damaged his hard hat and injured his head:

In the context of falling objects, the risk to be guarded against is the unchecked or insufficiently checked descent of the object” … . It is settled law that a plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to liability on a Labor Law § 240(1) “falling object” claim where he shows that he was struck by a falling object, that such object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, and that the lack of adequate overhead protection failed to shield against the falling of such object and therefore proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries … . * * *

… [A] “… plaintiff’s prima facie case in a Labor Law § 240(1) action involving falling objects is not dependent on whether the plaintiff observed the object that hit him. . A plaintiff is not required to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell, where a lack of a protective device proximately caused the injuries. Further, [the general contractor’s project manager] identified a photograph of the brick that struck plaintiff, stating that the brick in the photo was consistent with the lone type of brick that was used on the faÇade of the building at the time of the incident … . Torres-Quito v 1711 LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01279, Frist Dept 3-12-24

Practice Point: The absence of safety netting to protect against falling objects was deemed the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury from a falling brick in this Labor Law 240(1) case.

 

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