You are here: / PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER AN EMPTY MILK CRATE ON A CARPETED FLOOR; THE CONDITION...

Search Results

/ ,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER AN EMPTY MILK CRATE ON A CARPETED FLOOR; THE CONDITION WAS DEEMED “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW ENTITLING DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case on the ground the empty milk crate plaintiff tripped over was an “open and obvious” condition:

The accident occurred in the morning, during one of the plaintiff’s usual daytime shifts. As the plaintiff was walking in a hallway with carpeting she described as “reddish, green-ish . . . earth colors,” she tripped on an empty, black milk crate. By all accounts, the milk crate was an ordinary milk crate and it was not attached to the floor in any way … . * * *

… [T]he hotel defendants established … the empty milk crate was open and obvious, as it was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, and was not inherently dangerous under all the existing circumstances … . Raspberry v Best W. JFK Airport Hotel, 2025 NY Slip Op 04264, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: This decision presents a rare example of a condition which caused a trip and fall, i.e. an empty milk crate on a carpeted floor, deemed “open and obvious” as a matter of law.​

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A SCHEDULE FOR MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES IN THIS CUSTODY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, held the judge should not have left it up to mother and the non-family-member (Pierce) who brought the custody petition to determine mother’s parental access:

… [A[ “court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child” … . Here, the Family Court improperly delegated the determination of the mother’s parental access to the mother and Pierce. The record reflects that the relationship between Pierce and the mother has deteriorated and reveals troubling interactions between the parties, including one alleged instance where Pierce prevented the mother from visiting the child during a scheduled visitation. Accordingly, we remit the matter … to expeditiously establish both a supervisor for the mother’s parental access with the child as well as a specific schedule for the mother’s parental access in accordance with the best interests of the child that shall be observed by both the mother and Pierce … . Matter of Pierce v Joyner, 2025 NY Slip Op 04250, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: The court cannot delegate its authority to set up a parental-access schedule to the parties in a custody action.

 

/ ,

IN A SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION; ONLY PROOF THE AREA WAS INSPECTED OR CLEANED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL WILL SUFFICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition and therefore were not entitled to summary judgment:

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The defendants’ property manager provided information only as to the building’s general cleaning and inspection practices, and the defendants did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the staircase was last cleaned or inspected before the plaintiff slipped and fell … . Johnson v 2525-2537 Realty, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04239, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, a lack of constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition cannot be proved by evidence of general cleaning practices. There must be evidence the area was cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall.

 

/ , ,

IN A MED MAL ACTION, AN EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD WILL BE DEEMED “CONCLUSORY” AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted because the expert affirmation submitted is support of the motion was “conclusory and not supported by the record:”

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The defendants submitted, inter alia, the affirmation of an expert, whose opinions regarding the defendants’ alleged failure to diagnose the plaintiff’s aortic dissection after receipt of certain X-ray results and blood test results were conclusory and unsupported by the record … . That expert’s opinion regarding proximate cause was also conclusory and insufficient to meet the defendants’ burden as the parties moving for summary judgment … . In v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 04238, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: In a med mal case. an expert affirmation which is not supported by the record will be deemed “conclusory” and insufficient to support summary judgment.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER REQUIRING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff’s failure to comply with status conference order to file an application for an order of reference by a date certain did not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint:

“[A] court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . “Here, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the status conference order directing it to file an application for an order of reference was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint” … . … Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Davis, 2025 NY Slip Op 04232, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: Failure to comply with a status conference order to apply for an order of reference by a certain date does not justify a judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint.

 

/

THE ADULT SURVIVORS ACT, CPLR SECTION 214-J, REVIVES AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED ACTION COMMENCED IN 2005 AND DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN 2009 (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Adult Survivors Act (ASA), which is CPLR section 214-j, may be applied to revive an otherwise time-barred action commenced in 2005 and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in 2009. The ASA concerns lawsuits alleging damages for sexual assault:

CPLR 214-j, enacted as part of the ASA and effective May 24, 2022, opened a revival window during which adult victims of sexual abuse could assert civil claims or causes of action against their abusers for acts committed against them when they were 18 years or older that would otherwise be time-barred … . CPLR 214-j provides, inter alia, that “every civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense . . . committed against such person who was eighteen years of age or older . . . which is barred as of the effective date of this section because the applicable period of limitation has expired, and/or the plaintiff previously failed to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim, is hereby revived.” CPLR 214-j further provides that, “[i]n any such claim or action, dismissal of a previous action, ordered before the effective date of this section, on grounds that such previous action was time barred, and/or for failure of a party to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim, shall not be grounds for dismissal of a revival action pursuant to this section.” * * *

The plain language of CPLR 214-j provides that it revives “every civil claim or cause of action” alleging the subject conduct “which is barred . . . because the applicable period of limitation has expired” (emphasis added). The use of the word “every” in describing such claims or causes of action imports no limitation and evidences the Legislature’s intent for revival to apply to all claims and causes of action that would otherwise be barred on statute of limitations grounds … . Esposito v Isaac, 2025 NY Slip Op 04231, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: The Adult Survivors Act (ASA), CPLR 214-j, revives “every civil claim” alleging damages for sexual assault of persons over 18, including an otherwise time-barred action which was dismissed in 2009 for lack of personal jurisdiction.

 

/ , ,

THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE A LOAN ON DEFENDANT’S BEHALF; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION ON A LOAN PROCURED BY DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S ASSISTANCE; “EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO …” CRITERIA IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Warhit, determined the brokerage agreement did not give plaintiff the right to a commission when the defendant procured financing on its own:

This appeal presents the opportunity to examine the law of brokerage agreements granting an “exclusive right to sell,” as well as the application of such agreements outside the context of transactions involving the sale or lease of real property. In the present case, the plaintiff broker contends that it had an exclusive agreement to secure certain financing on behalf of the defendant and that it was entitled to a commission even though it was not the procuring cause of a loan the defendant ultimately obtained. * * *

The agreement did not clearly and expressly provide the plaintiff with the exclusive right to deal or negotiate on the defendant’s behalf … . The defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the loan … . Angelic Real Estate, LLC v Aurora Props., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04223, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an explanation of the contractual terms necessary to confer on a broker an exclusive right to procure a loan, such that a commission is owed even when the loan is procured without the broker’s assistance (not the case here).

 

/

THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION LAW REQUIRES SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE FREE EDUCATION TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE THEY TURN 22 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the New York State Education Department (SED) properly held that school districts, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Law, are required to provide free education to individuals with disabilities until the day before they turn 22. The opinion resolved a conflict between applicable laws and is too complex to fairly summarize here. Matter of Mahopac Cent. Sch. Dist. v New York State Educ. Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 04214, Third Dept 7-17-25

Same issues and result in Matter of Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist. v New York State Educ. Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 04211, Third Dept 7-17-25

 

/

PLAINTIFF STEPPED IN A HOLE WHEN DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE; HE WAS PERFORMING WORK “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE TILES AND THEREFORE WAS PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); A SUBCONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was delivering tiles to the construction site when he stepped into a hole near the loading ramp. Although plaintiff was not himself engaged in work covered by Labor Law 240(1), he was performing work “necessary and incidental” to the installation of the tiles. The court noted that the action against a subcontractor was properly dismissed because the subcontractor did not exercise any authority over the area where plaintiff was injured and therefore could not be considered a “statutory agent” under the Labor Law:
Labor Law § 240(1) protects persons engaged “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” The task that a plaintiff is performing at the exact moment of their accident is not dispositive of whether they were engaged in a protected activity for purposes of liability under this statute … . Rather, the inquiry includes whether the plaintiff’s employer was contracted to perform the kind of work enumerated in the statutes … and whether the plaintiff was performing work “necessary and incidental to” a protected activity … . Because plaintiff’s work in delivering and unloading tiles to be used in the activity covered by Labor Law § 240(1) was “necessary and incidental” to the protected activity, he was within the class of workers protected by those statues, notwithstanding that he was not assigned to participate in the installation of the tiles … .
… Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) only apply to owners, general contractors, and their statutory agents … . “To be treated as a statutory agent, the subcontractor must have been delegated the supervision and control either over the specific work area involved or the work which [gave] rise to the injury. If the subcontractor’s area of authority is over a different portion of the work or a different area than the one in which the plaintiff was injured, there can be no liability under this theory” … . Here, [the subcontractor’s] work as the electrical contractor was limited to providing electrical installation and temporary lighting, and did not encompass either tile work or maintaining the temporary ramp or surrounding areas. Rodriguez v Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04221, First Dept 7-17-25
Practice Point: Delivering materials to a work site is necessary and incidental to the construction work and is therefore a covered activity under Labor Law 240(1).
Practice Point:  A subcontractor will not be liable to an injured worker as a statutory agent of the owner or general contractor unless the subcontractor exercises authority over the area where the injury occurred (not the case here).
/ , , ,

EXCLUDING A SPECTATOR FROM THE TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS SLEEPING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL; THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR IS NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s excluding a spectator from defendant’s trial violated the defendant’s right to a public trial. The spectator, apparently a friend of the defendant, had been asleep during the trial. He was excluded solely on that ground:

While trial courts have “inherent discretionary power to exclude members of the public from the courtroom” … , that discretion “must be exercised only when unusual circumstances necessitate it” … . “In sum, ‘an affirmative act by the trial court excluding persons from the courtroom’ without lawful justification constitutes a violation of the defendant’s right to a public trial” … . “A violation of the right to an open trial is not subject to harmless error analysis and a per se rule of reversal irrespective of prejudice is the only realistic means to implement this important constitutional guarantee” … .

Here, after the first day of testimony had concluded and jurors had been dismissed for the day, the Supreme Court excluded a spectator from the courtroom for sleeping, which the court noted was “disrespectful” and “distracting to the jurors.” The court told the spectator … he was “excluded from this courtroom for the rest of this trial” and was “not to return” to the courtroom. * * *

The record demonstrates that the Supreme Court did not sufficiently consider whether less drastic measures could have addressed the spectator’s behavior, such as warning the spectator or requesting that the spectator alter his demeanor in the courtroom … . The court’s statement the next day that the spectator was no longer excluded from the courtroom was insufficient to remedy the court’s error. People v White, 2025 NY Slip Op 04193, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: A judge has to have a good reason for excluding a spectator from a trial. The fact that the spectator had slept during the trial was not enough. Exclusion of spectators deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a public trial.

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