You are here: / / Although Defendant Was Not Responsible for the Pedestrian Ramp, There Was...

Although Defendant Was Not Responsible for the Pedestrian Ramp, There Was a Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Snow Removal (from the Ramp) Created the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether defendant is liable for a slip and fall on a pedestrian ramp.  Although, by virtue of a city regulation, defendant was not responsible for the ramp, there was a question whether defendant’s snow-removal created the dangerous condition (black ice):

…[T]he defendant established, prima facie, that the area in which the plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell was part of a pedestrian ramp, for which it was not responsible (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210). However, a property owner that elects to engage in snow removal activities must act with reasonable care so as to avoid creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by a storm … . Here, the defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the black ice condition upon which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell was created by its snow removal efforts … . Herskovic v 515 Ave I Tenants Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 00334, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE FOR THE MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ (ZBA’S) DENIAL OF A LOT-SIZE VARIANCE CONFLICTED WITH A PRIOR RULING BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS; THEREFORE THE ZBA WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION; THE DECISION, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE LETTER GAVE BUYER SUFFICIENT TIME AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THAT DATE, SELLER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE ACTED ILLEGALLY IN DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT INDEPENDENT ACT OF RUNNING OVER THE POLICE OFFICER DISSIPATED THE ILLEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CERTAIN TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE POLICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Take Evasive Action Did Not Constitute Contributory Negligence
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE STUDENT’S ACTIONS WERE IMPULSIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Contractual Indemnification Explained Owners/Occupiers of a Single Family Residence Not Responsible for Maintaining...