You are here: / / IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR...
,

IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant snow-removal company, Landscapes, and the defendant property owners, Nambar, were not entitled to summary judgment in this parking-lot-ice slip and fall case. Landscapes did not show it did not launch an instrument of harm by piling snow which melted and formed ice, and the Nambar defendants did not show they did not have constructive notice of the icy condition:

… [S]ince the plaintiff’s pleadings alleged that the Landscapes defendants, through their snow removal efforts, created the icy condition in the parking lot, thereby launching a force or instrument of harm that caused the plaintiff’s injuries, those defendants, in support of their motion for summary judgment, were required to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition … . The Landscapes defendants failed to make such a showing, as they did not affirmatively establish that they did not create the icy condition by negligently piling snow in an elevated area in the parking lot, where it allegedly melted and created a stream of water that refroze … . …

… [T]he Namdar defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they had constructive notice of the alleged ice condition. The deposition testimony of the Namdar defendants’ building engineer raised a triable issue of fact as to whether those defendants had notice of the condition that allegedly caused the ice to form, i.e., the stream of water flowing from the pile of snow in the elevated area of the parking lot … . In addition, the deposition testimony of [one of the Landscapes defendants] indicated that the building engineer had instructed him to pile snow in certain places, including the elevated area of the parking lot, thus raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the Namdar defendants were responsible for creating the alleged ice condition … . Tomala v Islandia Expressway Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02347, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: Here in this slip and fall case the snow-removal contractor did not demonstrate it did not launch an instrument of harm by piling snow such that it melted and formed ice and the property owners did not demonstrate they did not have constructive notice of or did not participate in the creation of the dangerous condition. The defendants should not have been granted summary judgment.

 

You might also like
Failure to Cooperate with Probation Department Is Valid Reason for Enhanced Sentence
THE PARTY SEEKING A CONTEMPT FINDING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ONE COURT ORDER AND THE OTHER COURT ORDER DID NOT EXPRESS AN UNEQUIVOCAL MANDATE; CONTEMPT FINDING REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER, IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact About Whether Amusement Ride On Sidewalk Created an Inherently Dangerous Condition and Whether the Hazard Was Latent or Open and Obvious
THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH; CPLR 2101, WHICH REQUIRES DOCUMENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WHICH ARE FILED OR SERVED BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS IN ENGLISH (SECOND DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED IT COULD CONSIDER THE ACTIONS OF COMPLAINANT’S HUSBAND IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED IN THIS ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (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

DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES FROM... THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE...