From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 29, 2000
269 A.D.2d 324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 29, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered February 19, 1999, which denied the motion of defendant Perth Equities Realty Co., Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as against defendant-appellant. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint as against it.

Douglas A. Milch, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Charles A. Kuffner, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.

NARDELLI, J.P., RUBIN, ANDRIAS, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


It is well settled that an owner of real property is under no duty to the public to remove snow and ice which naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of its premises and, in order to incur liability, the owner's snow removal efforts must have made the sidewalk more hazardous (Quiles v. 200 West 94 th St. Corp., 262 A.D.2d 169, 692 N.Y.2d 59, 60; Rhymer v. Nalpantidis, 232 A.D.2d 299, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 814; Stewart v. Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 A.D.2d 731). In this matter, there has been absolutely no showing that Perth Equities, the owner, created a dangerous condition on the abutting sidewalk or, further, made any attempt to remove the snow and ice before the accident occurred.

Moreover, paragraph 51 of the lease between Perth Equities, as owner, and Singles of Dyckman St., Inc., as tenant, specifically provides that "the Tenant will, at its own cost and expense, keep the sidewalk in front of the demised premises free and clear of ice, sleet, snow . . . at all times." As a result, plaintiff's attempt to establish liability based upon the owner's right of re-entry to make repairs or improvements is unavailing as the re-entry provisions clearly refer to the maintenance of permanent structures as opposed to a snowfall, a transient condition specifically addressed in the lease (Quiles v. 200 West 94 th St. Corp., supra, at 60; see also, Suntken v. 226 West 75 th St., Inc., 258 A.D.2d 314).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 29, 2000
269 A.D.2d 324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Feb 29, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 176

Citing Cases

Torres v. City of New York

In any event, the two decisions cited by defendants in their reply are inapposite as they do not address the…

Steo v. New York University

Moreover, the evidence of light precipitation and freezing temperatures on the night before the incident was…