You are here: / / DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID...

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICY CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners did not demonstrate defendant’s snow removal efforts did not create the condition and did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the icy condition of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell. Defendants motion for summary judgment should not, therefore, have been granted:

​

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the snow removal efforts of the defendant Marc V. Antiones preceding the subject accident created the ice condition upon which the plaintiff allegedly fell … . Moreover, the defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the ice condition alleged. While the defendants demonstrated a lack of actual notice of the ice condition alleged, the evidence submitted in support of their motion did not show when the area of the sidewalk where the subject accident occurred was last inspected in relation to when the subject accident occurred … . Rong Wen Wu v Arniotes, 2017 NY Slip Op 02687, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICY CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICY CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICY CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NOTICE (ICY CONDITION, SIDEWALKS, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICY CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/by
You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE TIDAL WETLANDS ACT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT A RESTORATION PLAN AFTER DEFENDANT, CLEARED AND FILLED WETLANDS AND CONSTRUCTED A BULKHEAD AND FENCE ON WETLANDS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION ALLEGING INADEQUATE BUILDING SECURITY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF IN THE BUILDING LOBBY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAULT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).
Resort to Contempt for Failure to Make Payments Appropriate
THE AFFIDAVIT UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE AFFIANT AND THE CALCULATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE INFORMATION INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF 30 POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 9; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE; HAD THE PEOPLE KNOWN DEFENDANT WAS PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE THEY WOULD HAVE SOUGHT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE... MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED,...