You are here: / / ​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND I...
,

​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE OUT–OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-out-of-possession landlords were not responsible for snow and ice removal in the area where plaintiff slipped and fell, In fact, plaintiff, by the terms of his lease, was responsible for the snow and ice removal:

… [T]he defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords who were not contractually obligated to remove snow and ice from the subject driveway, that they did not assume such a duty through a course of conduct, and that they did not violate any relevant statute or regulation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had a duty to remove snow or ice under statute or regulation, the terms of the lease, or a course of conduct … . Sweeney v Hoey, 2022 NY Slip Op 07471, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlords were not responsible for snow and ice removal in the are where plaintiff-tenant fell. In fact, plaintiff, by the terms of his lease was himself responsible for the snow and ice removal.

 

You might also like
CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS.
MOTHER’S PETITION ALLEGED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A MODIFICATION-OF-CUSTODY HEARING; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SETTLING THE ACTION WITH ONE PLAINTIFF AND PROCEEDING TO TRIAL WITH THE OTHER PLAINTIFF.
THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT STEMMED FROM HIS STRIKING AND SERIOUSLY INJURING AN EIGHT-POUND DOG; THERE WAS NO NEED TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; INDICTMENT REINSTATED OVER A DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY PROPERLY WITHDREW ON IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES GROUNDS AND WAS ENTITLED TO 95% OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT TIME RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING THE DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE OF PROCESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

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

INSTALLING A TV ON A WALL IS NOT AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT-WIFE’S ATTORNEY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION MISSED A COUPLE...