Opinion
12805 Index No. 23219/18 Case No. 2020-00349
01-07-2021
Liodel BATISTA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Stephen HANCOCK et al., Defendants–Appellants, Paul Acosta, Defendant.
Mead Hecht Conklin & Gallagher LLP, White Plains (George P. Epstein II of counsel), for appellants. Kaplan & Kaplan P.C., Melville (Zara K. Watkins of counsel), for respondent.
Mead Hecht Conklin & Gallagher LLP, White Plains (George P. Epstein II of counsel), for appellants.
Kaplan & Kaplan P.C., Melville (Zara K. Watkins of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Moulton, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered on or about November 6, 2019, which denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
"Summary judgment in a snow or ice case is proper where a defendant demonstrates, through climatological data and expert opinion, that the weather conditions would preclude the existence of snow or ice at the time of the accident," or where climatological data submitted on the motion demonstrates several days of "well-above freezing" temperatures between the snow event and the accident such as to establish a prima facie case undermining snow/ice hazard claims ( Rodriguez v. Woods, 121 A.D.3d 474, 475–476, 994 N.Y.S.2d 583 [1st Dept. 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Defendants-appellants, who owned the property that abutted the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, did not submit an expert affidavit in support of their motion. The evidence in the record, including a meteorological opinion submitted by plaintiff's expert, indicated that snow cover on the ground, including snow piles, together with freezing weather for several days prior to a minor thaw in the afternoon before plaintiff's early morning fall (as temperatures were once again falling towards freezing), warranted an expert opinion to support their motion. Defendants' characterization of plaintiff's meteorological expert's opinion as "speculative," in regard to how the alleged ice condition formed, and as to when, is unavailing; the opinion was grounded in data obtained from undisputed meteorological records, as well plaintiff's description of the alleged icy hazard and surrounding circumstances at the scene (i.e., nearby snow piles) (see Guzman v. Broadway 922 Enters., LLC, 130 A.D.3d 431, 12 N.Y.S.3d 92 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Rodriguez v. Woods, 121 A.D.3d at 476, 994 N.Y.S.2d 583 ). Such expert opinion linking the facts of the case and weather records is sufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether defendants created the hazard by their snow-removal methods.