Tam v. City of New York

Full title: PUI FONG TAM, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 19, 1999

257 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

682 N.Y.S.2d 907

Opinion

January 19, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, under the particular circumstances presented, "there is a question of fact concerning whether or not the [defendant] City [of New York] had an adequate opportunity to remedy the [snow and ice] condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff's accident". The court was therefore correct in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see generally, Candelier v. City of New York, 129 A.D.2d 145; Krause v. City of New York, 152 A.D.2d 473; cf., Canario v. City of New York, 246 A.D.2d 618; Martinez v. Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 238 A.D.2d 286).

Bracken, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.