Knowledge is quite a broad term

Understanding the “Notice” Standard in New York Premises Liability Cases

Property owners in New York have long faced questions about what level of knowledge they must have regarding potentially dangerous conditions on their premises. A significant 2012 decision from the Fourth Department Appellate Division helped clarify this crucial distinction, making it easier for injured plaintiffs to establish the notice element of their negligence claims.

The case addresses a fundamental question in premises liability law: must a property owner actually know that a condition is dangerous, or is it sufficient that they simply knew the condition existed? This distinction can make or break a personal injury case, as the notice requirement is often one of the most challenging elements for plaintiffs to prove.

The ruling represents a plaintiff-friendly interpretation that aligns with broader trends in New York tort law, similar to developments we’ve seen in no-fault insurance litigation where courts have generally favored more accessible standards for injured parties.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Harris v Seager, 2012 NY Slip Op 02207 (4th Dept. 2012)

“Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff was not required to establish that defendants had notice of the [*2]allegedly dangerous nature of the threshold and stairway. To establish the notice element of her negligence claim, plaintiff was required to demonstrate that defendants had notice of conditions that she alleged were dangerous, but she was not required to demonstrate that defendants knew that those conditions were dangerous (see generally PJI 2:90; Tanguma v Yakima County, 18 Wash Ct App 555, 563, 569 P2d 1225, 1230, review denied 90 Wash 2d 1001). To the extent that defendants rely on dicta in the decision of the Third Department in Richardson v Rotterdam Sq. Mall (289 AD2d 679, 682) that suggests otherwise, we decline to follow it. We note that, in support of their motion for a directed verdict, defendants did not contend the alleged defects in the property were “trivial as a matter of law.”

As long as you knew it was there, it did not matter that you knew it was dangerous… This is every Plaintiff lawyer’s dream.

Key Takeaway

The Fourth Department’s decision in Harris v Seager establishes that property owners need only have notice of the physical condition itself—not knowledge that the condition is dangerous—to satisfy the notice element in premises liability cases. This plaintiff-friendly standard significantly lowers the burden of proof for establishing negligence claims against property owners.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 analysis of premises liability notice standards, New York courts have continued to refine the knowledge requirements for property owners, and subsequent appellate decisions may have further clarified or modified the “notice” standard discussed here. Additionally, related developments in tort reform and insurance coverage requirements may impact how these cases are litigated. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations and any procedural changes that may affect premises liability claims.