From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Case v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2002
295 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2002-02277

Submitted May 17, 2002.

June 18, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Aide Pohorille and Raul Pohorille appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated January 17, 2002, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Oshman, Helfenstein, Mirisola, Schwartz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David L. Kremen of counsel), for appellants.

Rosenzweig Berson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey A. Berson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

An owner or a lessee is under no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of its premises (see Booth v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 357; Lakhan v. Singh, 269 A.D.2d 427). The failure to remove all of the snow is not negligence (see Spicehandler v. City of New York, 303 N.Y. 946; Kennedy v. C C New Main Street Corp., 269 A.D.2d 499, 500), and liability will not result unless it is shown that the owner or lessee made the sidewalk more hazardous by its attempts at removal (see Lakhan v. Singh, supra; Velez v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 570, 571).

The appellants presented evidence which established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to her contention that the appellants made the sidewalk more hazardous by removing or attempting to remove snow and ice (see Klein v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 290 A.D.2d 420; Lakhan v. Singh, supra; Velez v. City of New York, supra). In fact, the plaintiff testified at her examination before trial that the sidewalk where she fell had not been shoveled or cleared.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Case v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2002
295 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Case v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JACQUELINE CASE, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant, AIDE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 18, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 675

Citing Cases

Xiao H. Lin v. Farrington Arms Condo. All Area Realty Servs.

A failure to remove all of the snow is not negligence and liability will not result unless it is shown that…

Lella v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of third parties unless "(1) the snow removal…