You are here: / / Property Owner’s Obligation to Remove Snow and Ice from Sidewalk​
,

Property Owner’s Obligation to Remove Snow and Ice from Sidewalk​

The Second Department explained the obligation of the owner of an owner-occupied, two-family, residential house with respect to the removal of ice and snow from the abutting sidewalk:

Since the defendants’ property, a two-family house, was owner-occupied and used exclusively for residential purposes, the defendants were exempt from liability imposed pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(b) for negligent failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk …. Thus, the defendants may be held liable for a hazardous snow and ice condition on the sidewalk only if they undertook snow and ice removal efforts that made the naturally occurring condition more hazardous or caused the defect to occur because of a special use …. Unless one of these factors is present, an abutting owner of a two-family residence may not be held liable for the removal of snow and ice in an incomplete manner …. Rodrigo Texis Cuapio v Skrodzki, 2013 NY Slip Op 03293, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

SLIP AND FALL

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS A NONMEMBER PURCHASER OF A MEMBER’S INTEREST IN THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BRING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).
Ambiguity Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Guarantee
ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY PROVED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, IT DID NOT PROVE THAT PILING SNOW ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK DID NOT CREATE THE ICY CONDITION; THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Purported Deed Was Actually an Usurious Mortgage—All Related Transfers and Encumbrances Void
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
APPELLATE COUNSEL’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WAS DEFICIENT, NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL ASSIGNED (SECOND DEPT).
PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT MET; ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SHAREHOLDERS OR EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

College Had No Duty to Supervise Fraternity “Pledging” Activities Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Liability for Condition of Sidewalk...