You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE OR DEMONSTRATE IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS THAT ANY...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE OR DEMONSTRATE IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS THAT ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the snow-removal contractor's (Critics Choice's) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Because plaintiff did not allege a violation of any of the Espinal factors, Critics Choice's demonstration that plaintiff was not a party to the snow removal contract was sufficient to warrant summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about any of the Espinal exceptions:

“A limited contractual undertaking to provide snow removal services generally does not render the contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries of third parties”… . Nevertheless, “[a] contractor may be held liable for injuries to a third party where, in undertaking to render services, the contractor entirely displaces the duty of the property owner to maintain the premises in a safe condition, the injured party relies on the contractor's continued performance under the agreement, or the contractor negligently creates or exacerbates a dangerous condition”… .

The Critics Choice defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was not a party to any snow removal contract … , and thus, they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff … . Since the plaintiff did not allege facts in his amended complaint or bill of particulars that would establish the possible applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, the Critics Choice defendants, in establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, were not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply … . …

The plaintiff's conclusory contention that the Critics Choice defendants launched a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating the icy condition that allegedly caused him to fall was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Laronga v Atlas-Suffolk Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05924, Second Dept 8-29-18

NEGLIGENCE (CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE OR DEMONSTRATE IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS THAT ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE,  PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE OR DEMONSTRATE IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS THAT ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR, ONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE OR DEMONSTRATE IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS THAT ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Conviction Under Accomplice Liability Theory Reversed After a Weight of the Evidence Analysis
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY.
DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER WAS NEGLIGENT; THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT’S OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY DID NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN PHYSICALLY SMALL DEFECTS, IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER FACTORS, CAN CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
Management Agreement Did Not Give Rise to Tort Liability for Slip and Fall

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

NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER FENCING CLUB WAS LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL... OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE...