Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Ross & Hill
3 followers
3 followers
About
Posts

Camizzi v. Tops, Inc., involved a trip and fall on a floor mat placed down by a supermarket. The injured plaintiff submitted evidence establishing that she tripped on a three-inch-high buckle in the floor mat placed on the tile floor at the entrance to the supermarket; that the mat buckled on several occasions each day as customers entered the store and as employees pushed shopping carts into the store; and that the store manager was aware that the mat buckled each day and that the buckling constituted a tripping hazard that could cause injury. The Court held that plaintiff thereby established the existence of a recurrent dangerous condition and that defendants had constructive notice of that condition.

Camizzi v. Tops, Inc., 244 A.D.2d 1002, 1002, 664 N.Y.S.2d 964, 964 (1997)
Add a comment...

In Matias v. Rebecca's Bakery Corp., a slip and fall action, defendants were denied summary judgment. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether bakery employees created hazard on kitchen floor that caused plaintiff to slip and fall, or had constructive notice of such hazard, precluded summary judgment.

Matias v. Rebecca's Bakery Corp., 44 A.D.3d 429, 843 N.Y.S.2d 263 (2007)
Add a comment...

RODRIGUEZ vs. BA HALLASY ET AL

TOPIC: Motor Vehicle Negligence - Sideswipe Negligence - Defendant driver sideswipes plaintiff's car - Cervical and lumbar herniations - Damages only.
SUMMARY:

Result: $165,000 VERDICT

ATTORNEY:
Plaintiff's: Adam Hill of Law Offices of Ross and Hill, PLLC. in Brooklyn, NY.
JUDGE: Ben Barbato

COUNTY: Bronx
INJURIES:
Motor Vehicle Negligence - Sideswipe Negligence - Defendant driver sideswipes plaintiff's car - Cervical and lumbar herniations - Damages only.

FACTS:
Liability was stipulated in this case in which the plaintiff, 40 years old at the time of the accident, contended that the defendant driver sideswiped her car. The parties entered into a $0/$50,000 (policy limits) high/low agreement, and that case was tried by way of a Summary Judgment Trial.

The plaintiff contended that she developed neck and lower back pain, as well as herniations in the lumbar and cervical areas, which were confirmed by MRI. The plaintiff contended that despite five months of physical therapy, chiropractic and acupuncture treatment, as well as three body manipulations under anesthesia, she will suffer permanent symptoms.
The jury awarded $165,000.

RODRIGUEZ vs. BA HALLASY ET AL, 33 NY. J.V.R.A. 5:17
Add a comment...

Genuine issue of material fact as to whether restaurant owner had constructive notice of dangerous condition created by ice on sidewalk near restaurant entrance, which was allegedly caused by runoff from restaurant roof which was designed without gutters and with metal drip edge causing water to run to pavement, precluded summary judgment in premises liability action arising from fall caused by ice.

Loguidice v. Fiorito, 254 A.D.2d 714, 678 N.Y.S.2d 225 (1998)
Add a comment...

In Dawson v. Raimon Realty Corp., the Court held that genuine issue of material fact as to whether landlord was notified of leaking pipe in tenant's day-care facility before maintenance worker was injured in slip and fall accident precluded summary judgment in worker's personal injury action.

Summary judgment affidavit indicating that maintenance worker had notified two of his supervisors of leaking pipe at tenant's day-care center before his slip and fall accident, and that he saw and heard both of those supervisors call the landlord about the defect did not contain hearsay; worker's statements about the conversations he overheard were not offered to establish that the pipe was leaking, but to demonstrate that the landlord had notice of this defect.


Dawson v. Raimon Realty Corp., 303 A.D.2d 708, 758 N.Y.S.2d 100 (2003)
Add a comment...

Where apartment house owner had duty to repair sidewalk in which iron bars not necessary for public use were installed solely for accommodation of apartment house, pedestrian could maintain action against owner for injuries when she caught her foot in a hole near bars, and city, which was also sued by pedestrian, could file cross-complaint against owner.

Nickelsburg v. City of New York, 263 A.D. 625, 34 N.Y.S.2d 1 (App. Div. 1942)
Add a comment...


Although general rule is that owner of land abutting public sidewalk does not, solely due to location of land, owe duty to public to maintain sidewalk in safe condition, exception to that rule exists where abutting owner created defect or uses sidewalk for special purpose.

Granville v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 195, 627 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1995)
Add a comment...

An out-of-possession landlord may be liable to employees of lessee for personal injuries caused by unsafe condition on premises, where landlord has retained control of premises, has specifically contracted to repair or maintain property, has, through a course of conduct, assumed responsibility to maintain or repair the property, or has affirmatively created dangerous condition.

Whittington v. Champlain Ctr. N. LLC, 123 A.D.3d 1253, 999 N.Y.S.2d 231 (2014)
Add a comment...

Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether pedestrian slipped on ice that had accumulated in front of apartment building prior to snow storm, and thus, whether the ice was a preexisting hazard and was not created by storm in progress, precluding summary judgment in pedestrian's personal injury action against apartment building owners.

Schuster v. Dukarm (4 Dept. 2007) 38 A.D.3d 1358, 831 N.Y.S.2d 619.

N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3212 (McKinney)
Add a comment...

While occasional snow removal measures by a tenant are insufficient to establish control over a common area, where there is a question as to whether such measures either created or increased a dangerous condition, summary judgment is inappropriate.

Vander Veer v. Henderson, 267 A.D.2d 584, 699 N.Y.S.2d 223 (1999)
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded