You are here: / / Ordinance Making Abutting Property Owners Responsible for Removal of Ice...
,

Ordinance Making Abutting Property Owners Responsible for Removal of Ice and Snow from a Sidewalk Did Not Impose Tort Liability on Abutting Property Owner

The Second Department determined that an abutting property owner (Atlantic) could not be held liable for an ice/snow slip and fall on a sidewalk in the absence of an ordinance specifically imposing tort liability on the property owner, even where, as here, an ordinance made the property owner responsible for removal of ice and snow:

“Unless a statute or ordinance clearly imposes liability upon an abutting landowner, only a municipality may be held liable for the negligent failure to remove snow and ice from a public sidewalk” … . Although section 229-6 of the Code of the Village of Ossining (hereinafter the Village Code) requires a landowner to remove snow and ice from abutting public sidewalks, it does not specifically impose tort liability for a breach of that duty … . “In the absence of a statute or ordinance imposing liability, the owner of property abutting a public sidewalk will be held liable only where it, or someone on its behalf, undertook snow and ice removal efforts which made the naturally occurring conditions more hazardous” … . In their pleadings, the plaintiffs did not allege that the Atlantic defendants created the icy condition. Rather, the pleadings alleged that the Atlantic defendants were negligent in, inter alia, failing to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk. Since the Atlantic defendants established that section 229-6 of the Village Code did not impose tort liability upon them for a failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk, they demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Palka v Village of Ossining, 2014 NY Slip Op 05848, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

You might also like
THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE OR IGNORE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VILLAGE ZONING CODE; THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE SITE PLAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT CORPORATION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE LOAN DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO DO SO; PLAINTIFF CANNOT RELY SOLELY ON THE PURPORTED AGENT’S ASSERTIONS OF AUTHORITY, BUT RATHER MUST MAKE A REASONABLE INQUIRY (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted Awarding Sole Custody to Plaintiff
DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; INSURANCE LAW 2601 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES CAUSE OF ACTION WILL SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE POLICE OFFICER DEFENDANT PUNCHED WAS ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE ‘HEAVIER BURDEN’ IN THE DEFINITION OF ‘LAWFUL DUTY’ PROVIDED TO THE JURY WITHOUT OBJECTION, DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BROUGHT IN 2011 WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE 2011 ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE NEVER STARTED RUNNING (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE WRONG TOOTH WAS EXTRACTED (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

Criteria for Appointment of Temporary Receiver to Wind Up Dissolution of Partnership... Memorialized Telephone Notification About Pothole Does Not Satisfy Written Notice...