You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS...
,

ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although the town did not have written notice of the dangerous condition, the town did not demonstrate it did not create the dangerous condition by piling snow that melted and re-froze:

… Since the plaintiff alleged that the defendant affirmatively created the allegedly dangerous ice condition through its snow removal operations, the defendant, in addition to establishing that it did not receive prior written notice, was also required, on its motion for summary judgment, to make a prima facie showing that it did not create the condition complained of … . …

A municipality’s act in piling snow as part of its snow removal efforts, which snow pile then melts and refreezes to create a dangerous ice condition, constitutes an affirmative act excepting the dangerous condition from the prior written notice requirement  … . The defendant’s evidence provided information about its general snow removal operations, but failed to show what the sidewalk abutting the accident site looked like immediately after it completed its snow removal operations. The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the 6 to 12 inches of snow that the plaintiff observed on the sidewalk, making it impassable, was not the product of its snow removal operations. The defendant also failed to submit any evidence as to what the temperature was from the time that it last performed its snow removal operations on January 24, 2016, and the time of the accident. Given that the defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether its snow removal efforts created the ice condition, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied … . Eisenberg v Town of Clarkstown, 2019 NY Slip Op 03319, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

You might also like
Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Property Owners Are Not Responsible for the Maintenance of Tree Wells Within the Sidewalk
PROVISIONS OF POLICY MANUAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS.
NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED.
ALLEGATION THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY CREATED BY THE CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACTION TO ENFORCE THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS GOVERNED BY THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW, NOT THE SIX-YEAR CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
​ NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A SINGLE ALLEGED ACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE WHICH OCCURRED IN NEW YORK IN 1975 OR 1976 WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS ON A FIELD TRIP; THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY A CONNECTICUT RESIDENT AGAINST A CONNECTICUT DEFENDANT AND ALLEGED SEVERAL OTHER ACTS OF ABUSE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN CONNECTICUT; BECAUSE THE ALLEGED TORT TOOK PLACE IN NEW YORK, THE CONNECTICUT PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY... NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S...