You are here: / Negligence
,

TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this action stemming from the assault of plaintiff-tenant by an intruder. The intruder entered the building by “piggy-backing” on an entering tenant. There was evidence this particular intruder had entered the building the same way on other occasions when he had harassed and assaulted women:

Given the existence of an issue of fact as to foreseeability, an issue of fact also exists whether defendants discharged their common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect the tenants from the foreseeable harm… . In particular, in view of the previous incidents, issues of fact exist whether the security measures in place adequately protected female tenants from the risks posed and whether reasonable measures should have included, among others, warnings to tenants about the perpetrator, advising security staff of the perpetrator’s prior arrest in the complex, providing security staff and tenants with the perpetrator’s photograph, real-time monitoring of surveillance videos, or increasing the presence of lobby attendants, who were absent on the day of the assault. In other words, under the unique circumstances of this case, an issue is raised as to whether defendants, who had notice of this repeat intruder, took minimal security steps with respect to preventing his ability to easily access the interior of their buildings and attempt to sexually assault female tenants … .

Finally, an issue of fact exists whether any negligence on defendants’ part was a proximate cause of the assault … . The record shows that the perpetrator was able to gain entry into plaintiff’s building not as a guest but as an intruder; given defendants’ awareness of the practice of “piggy backing” in general and “piggy backing” by this perpetrator specifically, the tenant’s act of permitting the perpetrator to enter the building by “piggy backing” does not, as a matter of law, amount to a superseding intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between any deficient security and the assault on plaintiff … . Gonzalez v Riverbay Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04042, 1st Dept 5-18-17

NEGLIGENCE (TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)/LANDLORD-TENANT (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE, TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)

, ,

MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact had been raised whether defendant bar (Danu) served the driver of the car in which plaintiff was injured when the driver was visibly intoxicated (Dram Shop Act). The court noted that defendant’s motion to renew its motion for summary judgment to correct a defect in the initial motion papers (the deposition transcripts were unsigned) was proper:

​

“CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” … . Here, Danu’s failure to provide signed copies of the deposition transcripts with the original summary judgment motion was tantamount to law office failure, which constituted a reasonable justification… . Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Danu’s motion which was for leave to renew. * * *

​

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Danu’s bartenders, who were not presented for deposition, served alcohol to the driver while he was visibly intoxicated. Proof of a high blood alcohol content does not, in and of itself, “provide a sound basis for drawing inferences about a person’s appearance or demeanor” … . Nonetheless, “[p]roof of visible intoxication can be established by circumstantial evidence, including expert and eyewitness testimony”… .

The plaintiff submitted a transcript of the driver’s plea of guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated and related crimes, which established that the driver recalled drinking “a few” mixed drinks prior to the accident and that his blood alcohol content was over .18%. The plaintiff also relies on a police report indicating that, after the accident, the driver was “observed to be intoxicated and placed under arrest.” Although Danu now argues that the police report is inadmissible, it submitted the report with its reply papers on the original motion. Thus, Danu waived any objection to its admissibility, and on appeal the plaintiff may rely upon the report in opposition to Danu’s summary judgment motion … . Trigoso v Correa, 2017 NY Slip Op 03983, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED))/DRAM SHOP ACT (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/EVIDENCE (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted in this car-bus collision case. Plaintiff testified he had a green light. The bus driver (Puntarich) testified he had a green turn arrow. The jury found the bus driver negligent but his negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. The Second Department noted that, because of the conflicting factual allegations, a motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law could not be granted:

“A jury finding that a party was negligent but that the negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause'” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, as the finding that Puntarich’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident did not rest upon a fair interpretation of the credible evidence … . However, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law was properly denied, as issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff also was at fault in causing the accident … .  Mancini v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03939, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff driver, determined that, although plaintiff had the right of way, he did not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this car-bus collision case. A driver with the right of way still has the obligation to see what is there to be seen and to take evasive action:

​

Although the operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield … , the operator with the right-of-way also has an obligation to keep a proper lookout to see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles … . Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault … .

Here, Mark [plaintiff] failed to establish, prima facie, that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. In support of his motion and cross motion, Mark submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which raised triable issues of fact as to whether Mark failed to see what was there to be seen and failed to take evasive actions to avoid the collision between his vehicle and the bus… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion and cross motion without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . Mark v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03940, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED

,

MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s toxic tort (injury from mold) cause of action should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage on statute of limitations grounds. There was a question whether the symptoms plaintiff developed within three years of filing suit were qualitatively different from symptoms experienced more than three years before the suit:

The motion court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for personal injury due to toxic mold. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that, after August 2010 (within three years of commencing this action), he suffered from “new” symptoms and injuries, including, among other things, eczema and significant fungal growth on his tongue and throat. Accordingly, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that this claim is time-barred … . While there are factual questions as to whether the sinus infections and related symptoms suffered prior to August 2010 were “qualitatively different” from plaintiff’s injuries after August 2010 … , at this procedural juncture it would be improper to dismiss the claim.  Gordon v ROL Realty Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03851, 1st Dept 5-11-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)

,

MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s toxic tort (injury from mold) cause of action should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage on statute of limitations grounds. There was a question whether the symptoms plaintiff developed within three years of filing suit were qualitatively different from symptoms experienced more than three years before the suit:

The motion court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for personal injury due to toxic mold. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that, after August 2010 (within three years of commencing this action), he suffered from “new” symptoms and injuries, including, among other things, eczema and significant fungal growth on his tongue and throat. Accordingly, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that this claim is time-barred … . While there are factual questions as to whether the sinus infections and related symptoms suffered prior to August 2010 were “qualitatively different” from plaintiff’s injuries after August 2010 … , at this procedural juncture it would be improper to dismiss the claim.  Gordon v ROL Realty Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03851, 1st Dept 5-11-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)

,

CONTINUOUS TREATMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHEN THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS DIAGNOSIS IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE AND THE CONTINUED TREATMENT WAS BY OTHER DOCTORS IN THE GROUP.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied to render this medical malpractice action timely. The court noted that the doctrine applies when the allegedly incorrect diagnosis occurred outside the statute of limitations and the continued treatment is not by the original doctor, but by other doctors in the group:

​

The continuous treatment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint … .  With respect to failure-to-diagnose cases, a physician “cannot escape liability under the continuous treatment doctrine merely because of a failure to make a correct diagnosis as to the underlying condition, where [he or she] treated the patient continuously over the relevant time period for symptoms that are ultimately traced to that condition” … . The continuous treatment doctrine may be applied to a physician who has left a medical practice by imputing to him or her the continued treatment provided by subsequent treating physicians in that practice … . Matthews v Barrau, 2017 NY Slip Op 03738, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION EVEN WHEN THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS DIAGNOSIS IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE AND THE CONTINUED TREATMENT WAS BY OTHER DOCTORS IN THE GROUP)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION EVEN WHEN THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS DIAGNOSIS IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE AND THE CONTINUED TREATMENT WAS BY OTHER DOCTORS IN THE GROUP)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION EVEN WHEN THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS DIAGNOSIS IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE AND THE CONTINUED TREATMENT WAS BY OTHER DOCTORS IN THE GROUP)

​

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendant doctors’ motion for summary judgment in this orthopedic surgery medical malpractice action was properly granted. Plaintiff’s expert was a radiologist and did not demonstrate familiarity with the standard of care for orthopedic surgeons:

​

… [W]here, as here, ” a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered'” … . The plaintiff’s expert, a board-certified radiologist, did not indicate any familiarity with the standards of orthopedic care. Donnelly v Parikh, 2017 NY Slip Op 03731, 2nd pt 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

, ,

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS.

The Second Department determined the defendants had demonstrated at a collateral source hearing that plaintiff will receive $205 per week in Workers’ Compensation benefits for the rest of her life. Even though the benefits were awarded after an unrelated 2002 accident, the damages awards for past and future lost income were reduced by $205 per week from the time of the 2010 accident (plaintiff was planning to return to work, and thereby lose the benefits, at the time of the 2010 accident):

​

In “[a]ctions for personal injury . . . where the plaintiff seeks to recover for the cost of medical care, dental care, custodial care or rehabilitation services, loss of earnings or other economic loss, evidence shall be admissible for consideration by the court to establish that any such past or future cost or expense was or will, with reasonable certainty, be replaced or indemnified, in whole or in part, from any collateral source, except for life insurance and those payments as to which there is a statutory right of reimbursement” (CPLR 4545[a]). The legislative intent of CPLR 4545(a) is to “eliminat[e] plaintiffs’ duplicative recoveries” … .. “The moving defendant bears the burden of establishing an entitlement to a collateral source reduction of an award for past or future economic loss” … .

“Reasonable certainty is understood as involving a quantum of proof that is greater than a preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Each of the four judicial departments has interpreted reasonable certainty’ as akin to the clear and convincing evidence standard, that the result urged by the defendant be highly probable'” … . In order to determine whether a party has established with “reasonable certainty” a payment by a collateral source, the defendants first “must establish with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff has received, or will receive, payments from a collateral source” … , and, second, “that collateral source payments which have been or will be received by the plaintiff must be shown to specifically correspond to particular items of economic loss awarded by the trier of fact” … . “Each case involving potential future collateral source reductions to awards for economic loss must be judged on its own unique facts and merits” … . McKnight v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03740, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES, NEGLIGENCE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (NEGLIGENCE, DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)/COLLATERAL SOURCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NEGLIGENCE, DAMAGES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)/DAMAGES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NEGLIGENCE, DAMAGES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)

EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department noted that evidence of general cleaning practices was not sufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the presence of liquid on the floor (the cause of plaintiff’s fall):

​

A defendant has constructive notice of a dangerous condition when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected… . Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the cafeteria supervisor, which only referred to general cleaning practices and did not establish when, prior to the subject accident, the area was last cleaned or inspected, failed to demonstrate that the alleged condition existed for an insufficient amount of time for it to have been remedied … . Valdes v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03794, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)

​

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