You are here: / / VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID...
,

VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment in favor of the defendant village should not have been granted in this sidewalk slip and fall case.  Although the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of snow and ice on the sidewalk, it did not demonstrate its practice of piling snow did not create the hazard:

While the mere failure to remove all snow or ice from a sidewalk is an act of omission, rather than an affirmative act of negligence … , a municipality’s act in piling snow as part of its snow removal efforts, which snow pile then melts and refreezes to create a dangerous icy condition, constitutes an affirmative act excepting the dangerous condition from the prior written notice requirement … . The defendant’s evidence demonstrated that the temperature rose and remained above freezing for an extended period of time on the day before the plaintiff’s accident, after the defendant created the snow piles. On the day of the plaintiff’s accident, however, the temperature dropped to below freezing. While the defendant submitted an affidavit of an employee who stated that he applied sand and salt to the area of the sidewalk where the plaintiff fell sometime between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the day of plaintiff’s accident, the plaintiff testified at his hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h that there was no sand or salt on the sidewalk at the time of his fall. Evidence submitted by the defendant also indicates that the ice upon which the plaintiff fell was located on a portion of the sidewalk that sloped down from the snow piles. Larenas v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2016 NY Slip Op 06684, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE,VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRIES BEFORE DETERMINING NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; MOTHER AND CHILD WERE IN CONNECTICUT, FATHER RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Imposing Order of Protection for Longer than Two Years Based on Family Offense Involving Aggravating Circumstance (Use of Weapon Here) Explained
THE INSURED, WHO WAS SEEKING UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS, DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY HER INSURER OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE INSURER’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Comments Made by Dean and Assistant Dean in Their Professional Capacities Protected by a Qualified Privilege
Statements in Hospital Records Attributable to Plaintiff Not Admissible Because Not Germane to Treatment or Diagnosis/Plaintiff’s Counsel Should Not Have Been Allowed to Comment on Defense’s Failure to Call the Nurse Who Was Going to Testify About the Statements—New Trial Ordered
Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Pennsylvania Policy Unenforceable in New York
CPLR 205 (a), WHICH ALLOWS SIX MONTHS FOR RECOMMENCING AN ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL, APPLIES TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IS A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PARTY WHICH STARTED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.
DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PSYCHIATRIC CENTER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED... DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S...