Injured in a trip and fall accident in New York? Know your legal rights. If you were injured in a trip and fall accident in New York due to the negligence of another you are entitled to compensation for any injuries caused by the accident.
At MJP Injury Law, we specialize in trip and fall accidents and have obtained some of New York’s top verdicts and settlements for trip and fall injuries.
In this blog post, we will provide a complete guide of New York’s laws regarding trip and fall accidents covering the elements of a trip and fall claim, the types of evidence needed to prove a trip and fall claim, who is responsible for the injuries, and the applicable statute of limitations periods.
Can you bring a lawsuit to recover for injuries caused by a trip and fall accident?
Under New York law, you are able to sue for injuries caused by a trip and fall accident if you can prove the elements of negligence. The plaintiff (injured party) has the burden of proof to establish each element of negligence through admissible evidence. Schnorr v. Emeritus Corp., 118 A.D.3d 1307 (4th Dept. 2014).
The elements of negligence that must be proved are (1) owes plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the Defendant breached the duty, and (3) the breach of duty was a proximate cause of an injury to the plaintiff. Abbott v. Johnson, 152 A.D.3d 730 (2d Dept. 2017).
If you are unable to prove any one of these elements, you do not have a valid claim for injuries caused by a trip and fall accident. Salvador v. New York Botanical Garden, 71 A.D.3d 422 (1st Dept. 2010).
What is duty of care?
By definition, negligence is the failure to exercise that degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have used under the same circumstances. New York Pattern Jury Instructions, 2:10 (3d ed. 2010). It arises from a breach of a duty owed by one to another. As such, unless the defendant owed the person injured a duty of care recognized by New York law, there is no negligence. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928).
In a trip and fall case, the first issue that the court must resolve then is whether the defendant owed a legally recognized duty of care to the plaintiff. Ferreira v. City of Binghamton, 38 N.Y.3d 298 (2022).
In the absence of duty, there is no breach of duty and without a breach there is no liability. Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781 (1976); Deutsch v. Green Hills (USA), LLC, 202 A.D.3d 909 (2d Dept. 2022).
The concept of duty of care arises from the well settled principle of New York common law negligence that a person should not be held legally responsible for the actions of others merely because those individuals happen to be within their view or presence. Pulka , 40 N.Y.2d at 785.
In turn, a duty of care is said to exist where the plaintiff’s interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct. Demshick v. Community Hous. Mgt. Corp., 34 A.D.3d 518 (2d Dept. 2006). The question of duty is best expressed as whether the plaintiff’s interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct? If the answer is yes then a duty of care exists and was owed by the defendant to the injured plaintiff. If not, then the defendant did not owe the plaintiff any duty of care to prevent or protect the plaintiff from tripping and falling.
A duty of care arises under New York common law, by statute, or by regulation, or it may be assumed by agreement or by a course of conduct. Alnashmi v. Certified Analytical Group, Inc., 89 A.D.3d 10, 14 (2d Dept. 2011).
Where duty is not imposed by the legislature in a statute or in a regulation, it is for the New York Court’s to determine whether or not New York common law imposes a duty of care between a plaintiff and a defendant in a trip and fall case. Ferreira, 38 N.Y.3d at 298.
When deciding if a legal duty is owed, courts must consider the potential, wide-ranging impact of their decisions. This requires limiting the legal ramifications of a wrong to a manageable and controllable extent. Holdampf v. A.C. & S., Inc. (In re New York City Asbestos Litig.), 5 N.Y.3d 486 (2005).
New York Courts make the determination of whether a duty exists by balancing factors, including the reasonable expectations of parties and society generally, the proliferation of claims, the likelihood of unlimited or insurer-like liability, disproportionate risk and reparation allocation, and public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability. Gilson v. Metropolitan Opera, 5 N.Y.3d 574, 577 (2005).
New York Courts are hesitant to broaden the duty of care to the extent that a defendant could be held liable for failing to control the actions of others. Id. Such a duty is only imposed when the defendant’s relationship with either the wrongdoer or the plaintiff positions the defendant best to mitigate the risk of harm, and when there is no risk of unlimited liability. Id.
Statutes and regulations that impose duty of care in trip and fall cases
The New York legislature or a local governing body may pass a statute or regulation that imposes a duty of care on particular defendants and in particular situations. In the context of trip and fall accidents, the following statutes and/or regulations impose a duty of care
- NYC Administrative Code § 7-210 imposes a statutory duty upon owners of real property in New York City to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property in a reasonably safe condition, and provides that said owners are liable for accidents caused by such failure. Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 167 (2019)
- New York Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a non delegable duty on landowners and general contractors to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations set forth in the Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23 that seek to protect construction workers from trip and fall accidents in connection with construction, demolition, or excavation work, including Industrial Code Sections 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(e)(1), 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(e)(2), 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(d), and 23-2.1(a)(1)
- New York Labor Law § 200, which imposes a duty of care on landowners, general contractors, and their agents to maintain reasonably safe construction sites.
- The Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-147 (a) and Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 2-11 (e) (16) impose a duty on any company or party who benefits from work involving the opening of any street or sidewalk to restore the sidewalk or street opened and to maintain the portion of the street or sidewalk opened for three years from the date the work is completed.
- The Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-110 imposes a duty on any company or person who obtains a permit to perform work to a public sidewalk or street and on any company who performs the work to the sidewalk or street under the permit to perform the work and restore the sidewalk or street to a reasonably safe manner. Maldonado v. 527 Lincoln Place, LLC, 173 A.D.3d 730 (2d Dept. 2019); Cordell v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 234 A.D.3d 815 (2d Dept. 2025). In turn, the permit holder and or company who does the work under the permit to the sidewalk or street is liable for any “damage . . . to persons, animals or property by reason of negligence in any manner connected with the work. Cordell, 234 A.D.3d at 815.
- Labor Law § 241-b and its implementing rule 12 NYCRR 47.10 impose a duty of care on commercial business and property owners to mark all transparent glass doors in such a manner as shall warn persons using them that such doors are glass doors.
- Per 34 RCNY 2-07 (b) (2), owners of street covers, grating, and hardware have a legal duty of care to replace or repair any defects in their street hardware. This obligation also extends to repairing any defective street conditions located within twelve inches of the street hardware.
Duty of care Imposed by New York’s Common law for trip and fall cases
When there is no statute or regulation imposing a duty of care, you must look to New York’s common law. Under New York common law, liability for a dangerous condition on property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property. Annabi v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 238 A.D.3d 694 (2d Dept. 2025). New York common law also imposes a duty of care on all to refrain from creating unreasonably dangerous conditions and exposing others to unreasonable risks of harm. The existence of one or more of these elements is sufficient to give rise to a duty of care. Id. Where none is present, generally a party cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the dangerous or defective condition of the property. Id.
Property Ownership
Landowners generally owe a duty of care to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk. Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241 (1976); Alonzo v. City of New York, 134 N.Y.S.3d 429 (2d Dept. 2020); Russo v. Home Goods, Inc., 990 N.Y.S.2d 95 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014); Henry v. Hamilton Equities, Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 136 (2019).
The duty is premised on the landowner’s exercise of control over the property, because the person in possession and control of property is best able to identify and prevent any harm to others. Id. This duty includes eliminating, protecting against, or warning of dangerous, defective, or otherwise hazardous conditions. Pinero v. Rite Aid of N.Y., Inc., 294 A.D.2d 251 (1st Dept. 2002).
In contrast, a landowner who has transferred possession and control say through a lease to a tenant i.e., an out-of-possession landlord is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property. Id. There are, however, exceptions. An out-of-possession landlord retains a duty to remedy dangerous conditions if the landlord contractually assumes the responsibility to make repairs with the tenant. Id.
Occupancy of Property
It is well established that a tenant owes a common-law duty of reasonable care to maintain the portions of the property it leases in a reasonably safe condition, independent of any obligation that might be imposed by the existence of a lease. Williams v. Esor Realty Co., 117 A.D.3d 480 (1st Dept. 2014). Thus, a tenant must maintain the portions of leased property it occupies and controls in a safe condition. Likewise, the tenant must eliminate, protect against, and or warn of dangerous, defective, or otherwise hazardous conditions within its leased premises. Pinero v. Rite Aid of N.Y., Inc., 294 A.D.2d 251 (1st Dept. 2002).
Creation
Under New York common law, all are under a duty to refrain from causing or creating an unreasonably dangerous condition. Ismailova-Aronov v. Elecnor Hawkeye, LLC, 231 A.D.3d 1131 (2d Dept. 2024). If a person, company, landowner, or occupier of property causes or creates a dangerous condition they may be liable for all injuries that foreseeably flow from the condition. Drummond v. 450 Partners LLC, 210 A.D.3d 494 (1st Dept. 2022). Thus, if a person or company makes property less safe by causing or creating a dangerous condition, liability will be imposed if the condition causes a person to trip and fall. Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136 (2002); Calderon v. Cruzate, 175 A.D.3d 644 (2d Dept. 2019).
Special Use
When a party puts public property to special use, the common law imposes a duty on the party to maintain the special use structure in a reasonably safe condition. Poirier v. City of Schenectady, 85 N.Y.2d 310, 315 (1995); Kaufman v. Silver, 90 N.Y.2d 204, 207 (1997). As the Court of Appeals explains, where a party “derives a special benefit from. . . public property unrelated to the public use, the person obtaining the benefit is required to maintain the used property in a reasonably safe condition to avoid injury to others.” Id.
Thus, the special use doctrine imposes a duty on a private party who derives a special benefit from public property to maintain the area of use in a reasonably safe condition, irrespective of whether the party created the condition or actually uses the structure at issue. Katz v. City of New York, 18 A.D.3d 818, 819 (2d Dept. 2005); Granville v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 195, 197 (1st Dept. 1995); Beplat v. City of New York, 246 A.D.2d 471 (1st Dept. 1998); Feldman v. Kings Hero Rest., 270 A.D.2d 1 (1st Dept. 2000).
A party makes “special use” of property where they use a specific part of property they otherwise do not own for a special purpose different from that of the general public. Vrabel v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 443 (2d Dept. 2003); Tyree v. Seneca Center-Home Attendant Program, Inc., 260 A.D.2d 297 (1st Dept. 1999). Special use cases usually involve the installation of some object in a sidewalk or street or some variance in the construction thereof. Tyree, 260 A.D.2d at 297; Kaminer v. Dan’s Supreme Supermarket/Key Food, 677 N.Y.S.2d 553 (1st Dept. 1998). Taubenfeld, 48 A.D.3d 311 (Starbucks made special use of sidewalk by putting out two tables with two chairs). Courts have consistently recognized driveway aprons and sidewalk ramps as special use structures. Campos v. City of New York, 51 A.D.3d 843 (2d Dept. 2008); Katz, 18 A.D.3d at 818; Wylie v. City of New York, 286 A.D. 720 (1st Dept. 1955); Balsam v. Delma Eng’g Corp., 139 A.D.2d 292, 298 (1st Dept. 1988)
The duty to maintain a special use structure runs with the land. Thus, liability attaches even if the party neither constructed nor currently uses the special use structurre, so long as it benefits from or is capable of benefiting from it. Trustees of Canandaigua v. Foster, 156 N.Y. 354 (1898)
Breach of Duty
Negligence arises when a defendant breaches a duty of care. When that duty is created by statute, the statute itself defines the conduct required to satisfy—or violate—the obligation imposed. In other words, a statutory duty specifies what a defendant must do or refrain from doing in order to comply with the law. For example, NYC Administrative Code § 7-210 requires property owners in New York City to maintain the abutting sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. Thus, if a landowner allows the adjacent sidewalk to become uneven, broken, or otherwise hazardous, the owner is not in compliance with § 7-210 and is in breach of that statutory duty. Similarly, an owner or general contractor who fails to keep construction-site passageways free of dirt, debris, or other tripping hazards violates the statutory duty imposed by Labor Law § 241(6), as informed by 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(e)(1). By contrast, a defendant breaches the common-law duty of care when (1) a dangerous condition exists, and (2) the defendant created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy the condition within a reasonable time or provide an adequate warning. Hoppe v. Imperial Towers Assoc., 181 A.D.3d 659 (2d Dept. 2020).
Whether The Condition Is Unreasonably Dangerous Under New York Common Law
To establish the breach of duty element of negligence in a trip and fall case under New York’s common law, you must first prove the condition you tripped on is unreasonably dangerous. It is axiomatic that before negligence can be found, it must be established that the accident-causing object constitutes a dangerous condition, defect, or trap. Haynie v. New York City Housing Auth., 95 A.D.3d 594 (1st Dept. 2012). If the condition that caused the trip and fall accident is not unreasonably dangerous then there is no breach of duty, and thus, no negligence.
A common defense strategy in a trip and fall lawsuit is for the defendant to assert that the condition responsible for the plaintiff’s fall was trivial or de minimis—and thus, not an unreasonably dangerous hazard. This is known as the trivial defect defense. Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury. Camara v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 199 A.D.3d 509 (1st Dept. 2021). A defendant cannot use the trivial defect doctrine to prevail solely on the basis of the dimensions of an alleged defect, and the reviewing court is obliged to consider all the facts and circumstances presented. Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 N.Y.3d 66 (2015). Accordingly, there is no “minimal dimension test” or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth to be actionable. Arpa v. 245 E. 19 Realty LLC, 188 A.D.3d 479 (1st Dept. 2020). This is because a small difference in height or other physically insignificant defect is actionable if its intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances magnify the dangers it poses, so that it unreasonably imperils the safety of a pedestrian. Hutchinson, 26 N.Y.3d at 66. As noted by the Court of Appeals, the case law provides numerous examples of factors that may render a physically small defect actionable, including a jagged edge; a rough, irregular surface; the presence of other defects in the vicinity; or a location—such as a busy New York City sidewalk—where pedestrians are naturally distracted from looking down at their feet. Id. At 78. In sum the determination of whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is not based on a mechanistic analysis exclusively focused on the dimensions of the condition. Id. at 84. Rather, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including but not limited to the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury.
Another common defense strategy in a trip and fall case is known as the open and obvious doctrine. According to this doctrine certain conditions that are capable of causing a trip and fall accident are so obvious that the Courts deem them not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
With respect to open and obvious arguments, the courts recognizes two scenarios — (1) where summary judgment is not appropriate because the evidence renders the open and obvious nature of the condition relevant only to plaintiff’s comparative fault or (2) where the proof makes summary judgment warranted because the open and obvious nature precludes a finding of liability against a defendant. Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48 (2d Dept. 2003).
Under the first scenario, it is not enough for a defendant to merely establish the alleged condition to be open and obvious. Id. Such proof only satisfies the defendants duty to warn, and thus, dismissal on open and bvious grounds is inappropriate because that defendant did not prove satisfaction of its duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. Id. In this scenario, the open and obvious nature of the alleged condition is only relevant to plaintiff’s comparative fault. Id.
By contrast, scenario two finds dismissal appropriate when the alleged condition is not only open and obvious, but also not inherently dangerous. Id. Therefore, when an alleged condition is both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous, summary judgment dismissing a trip and fall accident must be granted. Dillman v. City Cellar Wine, Bar & Grill, 123 A.D.3d 758 (2d Dept. 2014).
A defendant is not obligated to proffer measurements to invoke the open and obvious defense, as courts routinely rely on photographs to determine whether a condition is open and obvious. Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165, 169-170 (2001) (Holding open obvious doctrine applies upon review of photographs). In fact, the courts tacitly acknowledge the important role played by photographs in deciding cases by the number of times it has complained about the poor quality of photographs in records of appeal. Gennaro v. Cord Meyer Development Co & LLC, 57 A.D.3d 725, 726 (2d Dept. 2008).
Examples of conditions that New York Courts have found to be both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous include:
- Narrowness of a pathway has been held to be readily observable by one’s senses, and thus, non-actionable on open and obvious grounds. Lamia v. Federated Dep’t Stores Inc., 263 A.D.2d 498 (2d Dept. 1999); Weiner v. Saks Fifth Ave., 698 N.Y.S.2d 330 (2d Dept. 1999); Sewer v. Fat Albert’s Warehouse, 652 N.Y.S.2d 102 (2d Dept. 1997)
- A metal wire basket left on a store’s floor. Sewer v. Fat Albert’s Warehouse, 652 N.Y.S.2d 102 (2d Dept. 1997).
- Cardboard boxes in supermarket aisle.
- Benjamin v. Trade Fair Supermarket, Inc., 119 A.D.3d 880 (2d Dept. 2014).
Proximate Cause
When a plaintiff’s theory of negligence is based upon the existence of a dangerous condition, plaintiff must prove that the dangerous condition proximately caused the accident. Siegel v. New York, 86 A.D.3d 452, 928 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1st Dept. 2011). A defendant’s negligence qualifies as a proximate cause where it is a substantial cause of the events which produced the accident. Scurry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 193 A.D.3d 1 (2d Dept. 2021).
A defendant’s negligence does not need to be the sole proximate cause of the accident for a trip and fall victim to prove his or her claim. This is because there may be more than one proximate cause of an occurrence or injury. Mazella v. Beals, 27 N.Y.3d 694 (2016).
Where the acts of a third person intervene between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s accident, the causal connection to establish the proximate cause element is not automatically severed. Id. This is because liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence. Only where the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct, may it possibly break the causal nexus barring a finding of proximate cause. Thus, the mere fact that other persons share some responsibility for plaintiff’s harm or that the Plaintiff may be at fault does not absolve defendant from liability if they are also at fault because there may be more than one proximate cause of an accident.
The issue of proximate causation cannot be submitted to the jury based on purely speculative evidence. Jones v. Presbysterian Hosp., 3 A.D.3d 225 (1st Dept. 2004) (Argument that absence of handrail contributed to accident held speculation and not question for jury); Hyman, 307 A.D.2d at 984 (same). Although proximate cause may be established without direct evidence of causation, mere speculation as to the cause of an accident, when there could have been many possible causes, is fatal. Viviano v. KeyCorp, 128 A.D.3d 811 (2d Dept. 2015). A court must dismiss a negligence complaint if the plaintiff’s own undisputed testimony shows that the alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident, or if the plaintiff can only speculate about the cause of the fall. This failure to establish the essential element of proximate cause necessitates dismissal. Therefore, the cause of an accident is speculative when it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance could have cause the trip and fall accident. Bryant v. Loft Bookstore Café, LLC, 138 A.D.3d 664, 665 (2d Dept. 2016); Goldberg v. Village of Mount Kisco, 125 A.D.3d 929 (2d Dept. 2015); Pascucci v. MPM Real Estate, LLC, 128 A.D.3d 1206 (3d Dept. 2015).
How Long Do You Have To File A Lawsuit After A Trip And Fall Accident?
The time by which you must file a claim or lawsuit after a trip and fall accident is called the statue of limitations. In New York you must file a lawsuit within three years from the date the accident happens. However, if the claim is against a municipality then you must file a notice of claim against the municipality within ninety days of the accident and commence a suit typically within one year and ninety days from the date of the accident.
If you are involved in a trip and fall or slip and fall accident on a New York City sidewalk, it is very important that you contact an experienced New York City trip and fall attorney. Attorney Michael Prisco and his team at MJP Injury Law specialize in trip and fall accidents and have recovered Millions of dollars on behalf of trip and fall accident victims including the following notable verdicts and settlements
- $1.3 million for a woman injured in a trip and fall accident on a New York City sidewalk”
- $750,000 for a woman with back and knee injuries caused by a broken and uneven sidewalk
- $3.5 million settlement for a neck injury sustained in a slip and fall on stairs due to a landlord’s negligence
- $850,000 for a woman who suffered a lower back injury after tripping and falling in a retail store
- $1.2 million for a trip and fall on non-code compliant exterior stairs at a commercial building
Don’t wait to take the first step toward possible compensation. Call MJP Injury Law today for a free consultation at 718-709-9678 or use our contact form.