You are here: / / SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND...
,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive decision dealing with several related issues not summarized here, determined a snow removal contractor (Cristi) and parking lot manager (Five Star) demonstrated their contracts with Port Authority did not give rise to liability for a slip and fall in the parking lot:

A contractual obligation, standing alone, does not generally give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party unless one of three exceptions applies: “(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” … . …

The submissions in support of their respective motions show that neither Cristi nor Five Star created or exacerbated the icy condition and thereby launched an instrument of harm. Rather, they merely failed to be ” an instrument for good,’ which is insufficient to impose a duty of care upon a party not in privity of contract with the injured party” …

The contracts between the Port Authority, Cristi, and Five Star were not comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance agreements intended to displace the Port Authority’s general duty to keep the premises in a safe condition … . Castillo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 01593, Second Dept 3-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL,  SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ESPINAL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
A MOTION TO DISMISS AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, WHERE THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OF FACT, SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATION IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
​ IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO DISMSS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE MOTHER’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BUT RATHER FOUND THE PAPERS ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR WAS CONCLUSORY AND INSUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE NO HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD AND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF STEALING A CAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO SHOW KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT IN THIS CAR THEFT CASE, KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE ACT, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO AVOID A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHEN THE PLANK HE WAS STANDING ON SHIFTED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
RETROACTIVE IMPOSTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SEX OFFENDER VICTIM FEE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Delivered, I.E., When the Vehicle Was Leased===Three-Year Statute of Limitations for the General Business Law 349 Cause of Action Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Subsequently Purchased (After the Lease-Period)
Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of Law

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

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE... DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING...