SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the snow removal contractor's (O & M's) motion for summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case should have been granted:

“As a general rule, a limited contractual obligation to provide snow removal services does not render the contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries of third parties”… . However, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to the general rule: “(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” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 …).

Here, O & M made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the injured plaintiff was not a party to its snow removal contract and, thus, O & M owed her no duty of care … . Since the pleadings did not allege facts which would establish the applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, O & M was not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

In opposition to O & M's prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether O & M “created or exacerbated a dangerous condition” … . “A snow removal contractor cannot be held liable for personal injuries on the ground that the snow removal contractor's passive omissions constituted the launch of a force or instrument of harm, where there is no evidence that the passive conduct created or exacerbated a dangerous condition'” … . Reisert v Mayne Constr. of Long Is., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06777, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT))/ESPINAL FACTORS (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ESPINAL FACTORS, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (SECOND DEPT))