What 1,580 New York slip-and-fall appeals show - notice, summary judgment and the cases courts cite most
By LegiMatch Research Team · Published October 16, 2026 · 4 min read
Short answer: New York slip-and-fall appeals are mostly fights over summary judgment (mentioned in 77% of the decisions we analyzed) and notice of the dangerous condition (constructive notice appears in 36%). One Court of Appeals decision dominates: Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, is cited in 224 of the 1,580 decisions - about one in seven.
What we analyzed
We searched LegiMatch's library for New York decisions whose facts involve a slip, trip and fall: 1,580 decisions from 1989 to 2018, 96% of them from the Appellate Division. We counted how often key phrases appear in the full text and which authorities the decisions cite most. The figures describe what courts wrote about; they aren't predictions for any case.
Summary judgment is the battleground
| Phrase in the decision | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| "summary judgment" | 1,211 | 77% |
| "constructive notice" | 566 | 36% |
| "triable issue of fact" | 488 | 31% |
| "created the condition" | 144 | 9% |
| "actual notice" | 120 | 8% |
| "storm in progress" | 45 | 3% |
| "open and obvious" | 40 | 3% |
| "recurring condition" | 35 | 2% |
| "trivial defect" | 18 | 1% |
Most appeals come from orders granting or denying a defendant's motion for summary judgment. The question is usually whether the defendant showed it neither created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it - and, if so, whether the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact.
How the appeals were decided
The disposition (what the appellate court did with the order below) could be read automatically for 868 of the decisions:
| Disposition | Decisions | Share of those with a clear disposition |
|---|---|---|
| Affirmed | 555 | 64% |
| Reversed | 212 | 24% |
| Modified, affirmed in part, vacated or other | 101 | 12% |
"Affirmed" means the order below stood - which can favor either side, depending on who won the motion. Treat these shares as approximate: dispositions were labeled automatically from the decision text.
The authorities cited most
| Authority | Cited in |
|---|---|
| Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 | 224 decisions |
| Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 | 95 |
| Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 | 92 |
| Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320 | 86 |
| Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967 | 57 |
| Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976 | 45 |
| Goldman v. Waldbaum, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 436 | 30 |
| Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., 226 A.D.2d 590 | 29 |
| Lewis v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 64 N.Y.2d 670 | 27 |
| Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136 | 26 |
| Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233 | 26 |
| Solazzo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 6 N.Y.3d 734 | 23 |
Three groups stand out:
- Notice: Gordon (a defect must be visible and apparent and exist long enough to be discovered and remedied) and Piacquadio.
- Summary judgment standards: Winegrad, Zuckerman and Alvarez - cited in almost every kind of New York summary judgment appeal.
- Specific defenses: Trincere (trivial defects) and Espinal (snow removal contractors' duty to third parties).
What this means for your research
- Start with notice. Most decisions turn on what the defendant knew or should have known, and for how long.
- Frame the summary judgment burden. Know who moved and what each side had to show.
- Check the special doctrines - storm in progress, trivial defect, recurring condition - when your facts fit them; they're rare overall but decisive when they apply.
- Find decisions with facts like yours. Courts compare facts closely: the type of substance, how long it was there, inspection routines, weather.
LegiMatch is built for step 4: describe your matter and get up to 100 similar decisions, ranked by a match score that shows how facts, legal issues, statutes, jurisdiction and recency contributed, each linked to the court's text. It supports your research and doesn't give legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
What is constructive notice in a New York slip-and-fall case?
Under Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, a defendant has constructive notice when the defect was visible and apparent and existed long enough before the accident for its employees to discover and remedy it.
Why are so many New York slip-and-fall appeals about summary judgment?
New York allows appeals as of right from many interlocutory orders, including orders on summary judgment motions, so the Appellate Division often decides whether a case goes to trial.
How was this data collected?
From 1,580 New York decisions in LegiMatch's library (1989-2018) matching slip, trip and fall terms. Phrase counts use full-text search; dispositions were labeled automatically and are approximate.
Sources
- LegiMatch analysis of 1,580 New York decisions, 1989-2018 (court text from public-domain US court records)
- Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836
This article is general information about legal research, not legal advice. Verify every authority before relying on it.
All articlesMore from the blog
- Can AI find a case from its facts alone? A published test of similar-case searchWe rewrote 80 real court decisions in plain words, removed every name and citation, and measured how often LegiMatch Case Match finds the exact original among 4.7 million U.S. court decisions - with the method, so anyone can repeat it.
- Cases you may have missed - finding authority your brief doesn't citeAfter LegiMatch checks your brief, one click runs a fact-based search on the brief itself and lists strong matching decisions you haven't cited - how it works, what it costs and how to use the results.
- How accurate is LegiMatch Brief Check? A blind test on real court documentsOur blind test of the brief checker, with a detection rate for each kind of citation mistake - wrong court, year, pin cite, case name, quotation, invented case, wrong volume, swapped citations and statutes - plus how often it wrongly flags correct citations, measured on real court decisions and U.S. Supreme Court briefs nobody had used before.