You are here: / / DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE...

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner should not have been granted summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Under the NYC Administrative Code the property owner had a duty to keep the sidewalk clear of ice and snow. The evidence submitted by defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the snow and ice or that he did not create the hazard by efforts to remove snow and ice:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 imposes a duty upon property owners to maintain the sidewalk adjacent to their property, and shifts tort liability to such owners for the failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, including the negligent failure to remove snow and ice … . However, Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 does not impose strict liability upon the property owner, and the injured party has the obligation to prove the elements of negligence to demonstrate that an owner is liable … . Thus, to prevail on his summary judgment motion, the defendant was required to establish that he neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … .

Here, in support of his motion, the defendant submitted evidence which included his own deposition testimony. The defendant’s deposition testimony indicated that while he regularly cleared snow from the sidewalk in front of his building during the winter months, he had no specific recollection of what days it snowed during February 2013, or what snow removal efforts he undertook during that month. Kabir v Budhu, 2016 NY Slip Op 06682, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW AND ICE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
OWNER OF OWNER-OCCUPIED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY FOR A SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL PURSUANT TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE COMMON LAW; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
County Water Authority Had Standing to Bring Action Based Upon the Chemical Contamination of Its Wells—CPLR 214-c Governs Actions Based Upon Contamination—Action Was Untimely
DEFENDANTS’ VAN FAILED TO YIELD TO APPELLANT’S VEHICLE, WHICH HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHEN DEFENDANTS’ VAN ATTEMPTED TO MERGE INTO APPELLANT’S LANE; THE DASH CAM VIDEO DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT-DRIVER VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; APPELLANT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE REFEREE’S REPORT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against City for Negligent Failure to Provide Emergency Medical Services—No “Special Relationship” Alleged
THE UNINSURED PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS, AFTER TRIAL FOR AN INJURY WHICH LEFT HIM PARALYZED; DEFENDANT REQUESTED A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING (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

SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION... ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE...