From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yakkey v. Merrick Shopping Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1999
258 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 16, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff established that there are issues of fact as to whether the appellants, who were responsible for snow and ice removal in the area where the plaintiff slipped and fell, had actual or constructive notice of the alleged icy condition, or had contributed to its creation. Accordingly, the appellants' motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, e.g., Blake v. City of Albany, 48 N.Y.2d 875, 877; Rogers v. Dorchester Assocs., 32 N.Y.2d 553, 559; Kyung Sook Park v. Caesar Chemists, 245 A.D.2d 425; Jiuz v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 298; Kotopoulos v. Nathan Hale Gardens, 235 A.D.2d 276; Farrell v. Prentice, 206 A.D.2d 799; Glick v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 402).

Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Yakkey v. Merrick Shopping Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1999
258 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Yakkey v. Merrick Shopping Associates

Case Details

Full title:VICTOR YAKKEY, JR., Respondent, v. MERRICK SHOPPING ASSOCIATES et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 16, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 796