You are here: / / IN THIS SIDEWAIK ICE-AND-SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DEMONSTRATED...
,

IN THIS SIDEWAIK ICE-AND-SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this sidewalk ice-and-snow slip and fall case, determined; (1) the municipality demonstrated it did not have written notice of the ice-and-snow condition and plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether the municipality created the condition or benefitted from a special use; and (2), the abutting property-owner defendants did not demonstrate that they did not create the ice-and-snow condition. Summary judgment was properly granted to the municipality, but should not have been granted to the abutting property owners:

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or street is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner or lessee of abutting property … . There is an exception to this general rule, however, where the landowner has affirmatively created the dangerous condition … . The [abutting property-owner defendants] failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their snow removal efforts around the time of the injured plaintiff’s fall did not create or exacerbate the allegedly dangerous condition on the roadway … . Thompson v Nassau County, 2021 NY Slip Op 06878, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

You might also like
EVEN THOUGH THE PROCEEDS OF A TRUST HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO DECEDENT BEFORE HIS DEATH, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT RETAINED THE PROCEEDS AT THE TIME OF DEATH; IF SO, PURSUANT TO THE WILL, THE BEQUEST DID NOT LAPSE AND THE PROCEEDS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE NAMED BENEFICIARIES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET BEEN APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S ESTATE; PLAINTIFF IS FREE TO COMMENCE A NEW ACTION WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (A) UPON ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Summons and Complaint after the Statute of Limitations Has Run
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THE SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE, THERE WERE CLEAR SIGNS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCEEDINGS.
EVEN CRIMINAL SLURS ARE NOT ACTIONABLE AS DEFAMATION IF THEY ARE PURE OPINION; HERE DEFENDANT’S TWEET ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF MAKING “THREATS” WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S INJURIES, ANOTHER STUDENT, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY A DOG WHICH HAD BROKEN LOOSE, RAN INTO PLAINTIFF DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A SUDDEN LEFT TURN IN FRONT ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED PLAINTIFF’S LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE EXCUSE... A CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) IS NOT AN...