You are here: / / BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT...
,

BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the city, the property owner, the listing broker, the listing agent and the snow removal contractor owed no duty of care to plaintiff who slipped and fell on a sidewalk the day after snowfall and before anyone shoveled or treated the sidewalk. The city was not notified of the condition and did not create the condition. The property owner was not under a statutory duty to remove the snow. The listing broker, the listing agent and the snow removal contractor did not create the dangerous condition:

The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the snow and ice condition which caused the plaintiff’s accident, as required by section 24-11 of the Charter of the City of Yonkers … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to any exception to the prior written notice requirement, namely, whether the City affirmatively created the alleged defect, or whether the defect was created by the City’s special use of the property … . The City’s alleged failure to remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk, or to warn of a dangerous condition, were acts of omission, and not affirmative acts of negligence … .  * * *

Absent a statute or ordinance which 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 … . However, the owner of property abutting a public sidewalk will be held liable where it, or someone on its behalf, undertook snow and ice removal efforts which made the natural conditions more hazardous … . Here, although section 103-8 of the City Charter places the duty to keep sidewalks clear from snow and ice on the abutting landowner, the Charter does not expressly make the landowner liable for failure to perform that duty … . * * *

The Court of Appeals has identified three situations in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care, and thus be potentially liable in tort, to third persons: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . Any duty [the listing broker, agent and snow removal contractor] had with respect to the plaintiff arose exclusively out of the contracts each of them had with [the property owner]… . [The property owner] owed no statutory or common-law duty to the plaintiff because there was no statute which imposed liability upon it for the negligent failure to remove snow and ice from a public sidewalk, and neither [the property owner], nor anyone else on its behalf, undertook any snow removal efforts that made the conditions on the public sidewalk more hazardous. Rodriguez v County of Westchester, 2016 NY Slip Op 02635, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

NEGLIGENCE (BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF)/MUNICIPAL LAW (BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF)/SLIP AND FALL (BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF)

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING MOTHER NEGLECTED HER TWO-MONTH OLD CHILD BY EXPOSING THE CHILD TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; THAT THE CHILD MAY HAVE HEARD LOUD ARGUING BEFORE GRANDMOTHER TOOK THE CHILD TO HER APARTMENT WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAM AND AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH; THE STAY OF ARBITRATION IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Corroboration Requirements for Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Described
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN A GUARDED DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT AND IN A LOCKED BATHROOM IN THE JAIL; BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL, NOT A PROPRIETARY, FUNCTION (PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE PARKING LOT AND JAIL), PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY OWED HIM A SPECIAL DUTY, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO DO (SECOND DEPT). ​
EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING, HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE-OF-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN CPLR 308 AND 311 ARE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, NOT “TECHNICAL” DEFECTS WHICH CAN BE OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (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

FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH... DETERIORATING MENTAL CONDITION AND DEPLORABLE LIVING CONDITIONS JUSTIFIED REVOCATION...