Premises Liability

In New York, a landlord or business can still be liable for a slip and fall injury even if they routinely mop or clean the area—if they knew the hazard kept recurring and never fixed the root cause. Learn how the recurring condition theory can help prove your case.

In New York slip and fall cases, defendants often claim they recently cleaned or inspected the area to avoid liability. But courts routinely reject these defenses when they’re based on general policies rather than specific evidence. Learn how MJP Injury Law defeats these dismissal tactics.

Expert testimony can make or break a New York slip and fall or trip and fall case—but only if it’s done right. Courts require expert opinions to be based on facts, personal observation, or site-specific testing. Learn how the right expert can help you prove your case and when their testimony is admissible under New York law.

Does Special Use Create a Duty to Maintain? New York Law Says Yes

When a party makes special use of public property, does it merely assume liability if its use creates a dangerous condition, or does it have an affirmative duty to maintain the area? Under longstanding New York common law, the answer is clear: special use imposes a duty to maintain. The New York Court of Appeals has repeatedly confirmed this principle in cases such as Poirier v. City of Schenectady and Kaufman v. Silver, yet some Appellate Division decisions have misinterpreted the doctrine by improperly requiring that the special use itself create the dangerous condition before liability attaches.

This blog post explores the Court of Appeals’ precedent, clarifies the proper application of the special use doctrine, and explains why the mistaken rulings by certain lower courts should be overruled. Understanding this distinction is crucial for attorneys navigating premises liability cases in New York.

Read on to uncover why special use isn’t just about creation—it’s about maintenance.