Opinion
2020–02341 Index No. 605876/17
12-28-2022
Irene POZZULO, et al., appellants, v. Christopher BOTTA, et al., respondents (and a third-Party action).
Raymond S. Voulo, Mineola, NY, for appellants. Denis J. Kennedy, Garden City, NY (Lorraine M. Korth of counsel), for respondents.
Raymond S. Voulo, Mineola, NY, for appellants.
Denis J. Kennedy, Garden City, NY (Lorraine M. Korth of counsel), for respondents.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PAUL WOOTEN, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Anna R. Anzalone, J.), dated January 27, 2020. The order granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The plaintiff Irene Pozzulo (hereinafter the plaintiff), and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries that the plaintiff allegedly sustained on the morning of February 10, 2017, when she slipped and fell on snow and ice on a sidewalk abutting the defendants’ residence. In an order dated January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs appeal.
The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their snow removal efforts did not create or exacerbate the snow and ice condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall (see Gibbs v. Husain, 184 A.D.3d 809, 810, 127 N.Y.S.3d 42 ; Pol v. Gjonbalaj, 125 A.D.3d 955, 956, 5 N.Y.S.3d 186 ). Additionally, contrary to their contention, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Leibman v. Water Auth. of W. Nassau County, 187 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 131 N.Y.S.3d 590 ; Bombino–Munroe v. Church of St. Bernarnd, 163 A.D.3d 616, 617, 80 N.Y.S.3d 429 ; Lamour v. Decimus, 118 A.D.3d 851, 851–852, 988 N.Y.S.2d 235 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).
IANNACCI, J.P., CHAMBERS, WOOTEN and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.