You are here: / Negligence
,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined the defendant owner (In LIne) and restaurant manager (Spanburgh) did not demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff, a restaurant patron, was injured when he stepped in a hole in the front lawn of the property while playing a game (apparently sanctioned by the restaurant):

Defendants failed to establish that In Line did not create the hole in its front lawn by submitting Spanburgh’s deposition testimony and affidavit, because Spanburgh did not state that the lawn was inspected after it was last maintained by the outside company In Line had hired to mow the grass. They also failed to satisfy their initial burden to show that In Line lacked actual notice of the hole in its lawn, because they submitted no evidence that its employees and the outside company had received no complaints about the defect prior to the incident and that there were no similar accidents at the subject location … . The fact that Spanburgh testified and averred that he did not receive any complaints about the condition of the lawn does not establish that In Line lacked actual notice, because he did not state that he was working when the accident happened.

Defendants also failed to satisfy their initial burden to show that In Line lacked constructive notice of the hole in its lawn, because Spanburgh’s testimony and averment that he would inspect the entire premises every time the restaurant was open is insufficient to establish when the lawn was last checked before the accident … . Clarkin v In Line Rest. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02004, 1st Dept 3-21-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)

, ,

NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined the New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment in this lead-paint poisoning case was properly denied. The NYCHA argued that the building was constructed in 1974 and lead paint was banned in 1960:

Although NYCHA relies on its own testing that was negative for lead paint, DOH’s [Department of Health’s] lead testing came back positive. NYCHA’s arguments that these were false positives due to the manner in which, and location from where, the samples were taken is insufficient to disregard them as a matter of law. * * *

Nor did NYCHA prove as a matter of law, that it had no actual or constructive notice of the existence of lead paint in the building. Pursuant to the City’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Local Law 1 of 2004), lead-based paint is presumed to exist in a multiple dwelling unit if the building was built before 1960. Where, as here, the building is built between 1960 and 1978, the presumption will apply only if the owner knows that there is lead-based paint, and a child under the age of six lives in the apartment. Although in a pre-1960 building, paint is presumed to contain lead, the opposite is not true; there is no presumption that paint in a building constructed after 1960 is not lead-based. Given plaintiff’s claim, that NYCHA maintains the premises and assumed the duty to have the apartments painted, the absence of any evidence concerning the history of painting in the subject apartments is insufficient for the court to rule out, as a matter of law, notice. Dakota Jade T. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 01987, 1st Dept 3-21-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (LEAD PAINT, NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/LEAD PAINT (NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE DANGEROUS ICY CONDITION.

The First Department determined defendants’ summary judgment motion in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Although there was a snow storm in progress at the time of the fall, there was evidence plaintiff slipped on a sheet of ice which, because the temperature was well below freezing, could not have formed during the storm:

Here, as plaintiffs concede, there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident. Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether Sterling created or exacerbated the hazardous condition through its snow removal activities. Plaintiffs have met that burden, as they have both testified that they saw an ice patch at the scene of the accident. * * * This evidence supports plaintiffs’ argument that ice could not have formed after the snowclearing efforts by [defendant’s] employees. Accordingly, an issue of fact was raised as to whether [defendant’s] actions created or exacerbated a hazardous condition by employing a snowblower to remove snow without taking further steps to de-ice the sidewalk … . Baumann v Dawn Liquors, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01986, 1st Dept 3-21-17

NEGLIGENCE (EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE DANGEROUS ICY CONDITION)/SLIP AND FALL (EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE DANGEROUS ICY CONDITION)/STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE (EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE DANGEROUS ICY CONDITION)/SIDEWALKS (EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE DANGEROUS ICY CONDITION)

,

TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION.

The First Department determined the sidewalk defect was trivial and not actionable but the costs associated with defending the action were recoverable under the broad language of an indemnification clause (despite the absence of negligence):

Plaintiff’s description of the alleged defect that caused her fall as an “uneven spot” that “wasn’t as level as the other side” of a “little ridge” of concrete in the ground, without more, establishes that the alleged defect was trivial and nonactionable … . Moreover, defendants established that they had no notice of the alleged defect … . …

The indemnification provision in Montesano’s contract was … broad and required Montesano to indemnify defendants for liability, damage, etc., “resulting from, arising out of or occurring in connection with the execution of the Work,” including attorneys’ fees. Thus, although there was no negligence here, to the extent defendants incurred costs connected with Montesano’s execution of its work, which included constructing/resurfacing roads and sidewalks on this shopping center renovation project, Montesano is required to indemnify defendants. Robinson v Brooks Shopping Ctrs., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01972 1st Dept 3-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)/CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE, TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)/INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)/SLIP AND FALL (TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, TRIVIAL DEFECT IN SIDEWALK NOT ACTIONABLE, DESPITE ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BROAD INDEMNFICATION CLAUSE MANDATED PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION)

, ,

BUILDING RESIDENTS CAN BRING CLASS ACTION AGAINST OWNERS-MANAGERS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARATION FOR SUPERSTORM SANDY.

The First Department determined the residents of a building met the requirements for a class action suit alleging negligent failure to secure the building prior to Superstorm Sandy:

The court properly concluded that plaintiffs satisfied the criteria of CPLR 901, and the factors enumerated in CPLR 902 support class certification.

It is undisputed that the building has more than 400 residential apartments above 15 floors of commercial space. Thus, the numerosity requirement is met and joinder of all class members is impracticable … .

The commonality requirement is also satisfied in that the proof at trial will consist of evidence of defendants’ efforts to prevent damage in advance of the storm and to repair damage after the storm. Since the class consists of tenants of the building, common questions predominate over individual questions concerning the amount and type of damages sustained by each class member … . Any differences in proof with respect to the applicability of the warranty of habitability in Real Property Law § 235-b as between residential tenants and commercial tenants is insufficient to overcome the significant common questions, and the court may, in its discretion, establish subclasses … .

The claims of the putative class representatives are typical of the class’s claims since each resides or leases space in the building and their injuries, if any, derive from the same course of conduct by defendants … . Moreover, the record reflects that they are sufficiently informed about the facts, have no conflicts of interest with the class they seek to represent, and are able to act as a check on counsel … . Roberts v Ocean Prime, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01974, 1st Dept 3-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BUILDING RESIDENTS COULD BRING CLASS ACTION AGAINST OWNERS-MANAGERS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARATION FOR SUPERSTORM SANDY)/CLASS ACTIONS (BUILDING RESIDENTS COULD BRING CLASS ACTION AGAINST OWNERS-MANAGERS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARATION FOR SUPERSTORM SANDY)/LANDLORD-TENANT (BUILDING RESIDENTS COULD BRING CLASS ACTION AGAINST OWNERS-MANAGERS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARATION FOR SUPERSTORM SANDY)/SUPERSTORM SANDY (BUILDING RESIDENTS COULD BRING CLASS ACTION AGAINST OWNERS-MANAGERS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARATION FOR SUPERSTORM SANDY)

,

ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT.

The First Department, in a substantial opinion by Justice Acosta, reluctantly affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the dog-injury complaint. Defendant tied his 35 pound dog to an unsecured bicycle rack which weighed five pounds. The dog ran off, dragging the rack. Plaintiff’s leg became tangled in the rack, causing him to fall. The First Department followed the Court of Appeals precedent, which allows a dog-injury suit only on vicious propensity/strict liability grounds. The opinion strongly argued the law should be changed to allow dog-injury suits based upon negligence:

Were we not … constrained … we would … permit plaintiffs to pursue their negligence cause of action. To avoid the harshness of the [Court of Appeals] rule, the recognition of the following exception would be appropriate: A dog owner who attaches his or her dog to an unsecured, dangerous object, allowing the dog to drag the object through the streets and cause injury to others, may be held liable in negligence. In these circumstances, negligence liability would be in keeping with the principles of fundamental fairness, responsibility for one’s actions, and societal expectations … — assuming a jury would deem unreasonable defendant’s failure to ensure that the rack was secured before he tied his dog to it. It is not unreasonable to expect dog owners to restrain their dogs in public unless unleashing them is safe or specifically permitted at certain times and locations, as evidenced by local leash laws (see e.g. 24 RCNY 161.05). However, the Court of Appeals has decided that local leash laws have no bearing on whether liability in negligence ought to attach … , undermining the declared public policy of those localities that have enacted such laws … And although the [Court of Appeals] reasoned that New Yorkers may expect to find unrestrained dogs in public parks … , New Yorkers certainly do not expect to find those dogs running on public roads towing large metal objects behind them. A dog owner who, without observing a reasonable standard of care, attaches his or her dog to an object that could foreseeably become weaponized if the dog is able to drag the object through public areas should not be immune from liability when that conduct causes injury. Scavetta v Wechsler, 2017 NY Slip Op 01985, 1st Dept 3-16-17

ANIMAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT)/DOGS (ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT)/NEGLIGENCE (DOGS, ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL.

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s slip and fall was caused by excessive wax on the floor:

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped on a floor that was negligently waxed. Defendants submitted evidence showing that the floor was last waxed approximately three months before plaintiff’s fall … . In opposition, plaintiff raised triable issues as to whether “a dangerous residue of wax was present” … . She stated that after she fell, there was wax on her hands and, when she stepped on the waxy area, she saw a “scuff mark” running through a circular area, creating a “sunken stripe through the wax.” Plaintiff slid her foot back and forth on the circular patch, and felt the “accumulated, raised, substance on the floor” move with the pressure of her foot, and these actions were captured on the building’s security footage. Sanchez v Mitsui Fudosan Am., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01821, 1st Dept 3-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL)/WAX (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL)

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