You are here: / / PROOF OF A REGULAR SNOW REMOVAL ROUTINE IS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE A...
,

PROOF OF A REGULAR SNOW REMOVAL ROUTINE IS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant lessee (E & Z) failed to demonstrate it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged ice and snow on the sidewalk in this slip and fall action. Once again, it was not enough to offer proof of routine snow removal procedures as opposed to specific evidence inspection or cleaning close in time to the fall:

… [T]here was no statute or ordinance which imposed tort liability on E & Z for the failure to maintain the sidewalk abutting the subject property. However, E & Z’s principal, Hikmatullah Rasul, testified at his deposition that E & Z was required to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk outside the subject property to the curb on both the Jamaica Avenue side and the 104th Street side. Rasul explained that when it snowed either he, his brother, or a restaurant employee would shovel snow, break up any ice, and apply salt. E & Z did not clean at the bottom of the train staircase as that was not its property.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, E & Z failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it was free from negligence … . Specifically, E & Z failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it undertook snow and ice removal efforts to clear the sidewalk on the night of the plaintiff’s fall, or whether any snow and ice removal efforts undertaken by it created or exacerbated the icy condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall … . Since E & Z failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied E & Z’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Zamora v David Caccavo, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00329, Second Dept 1-20-21

 

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE THE LACK OF JURISDICTION DEFENSE BY PARTICIPATING IN THE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT A MOTION ON NOTICE, AN APPEAL IS NOT AVAILABLE BUT A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE; THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DEFAULT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT ABANDON THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONFIGURATION AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS AND THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WERE NOT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS WHICH PROXIMATELY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF AND/OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A PUDDLE OF LIQUID) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE IT WAS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS TO BE WITH FATHER IN THIS TEMPORARY CUSTODY PROCEEDING, ALLEGATIONS OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT REQUIRED A HEARING (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

THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS... RARE CASE WHERE EVIDENCE OF A ROUTINE PROCEDURE FOR KEEPING A PARKING LOT FREE...