Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Diana MASTRODDI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WDG DUTCHESS ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants, North Atlantic Industrial Maintenance, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered August 16, 2007, which denied the motion of defendant North Atlantic Industrial Maintenance, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
North Atlantic, a snow removal contractor, contends that it owed plaintiff no duty of care because none of the three situations in which a contractual obligation may give rise to tort liability to third persons obtains here (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002] ). However, North Atlantic failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to any of these situations. It failed to produce the snow removal contract with the premises owner in support of the argument that its contractual obligation did not displace the owner's duty to safely maintain the premises (see id. at 140-141, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002]; Schozer v. William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 N.Y.2d 639, 643-644, 620 N.Y.S.2d 797, 644 N.E.2d 1353 [1994]; Colbourn v. ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 304 A.D.2d 369, 757 N.Y.S.2d 291 [2003] ), and it failed to establish that plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the continued performance of its snow removal duties (see Espinal at 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485). In addition, given defendant's silence with respect to the actual snow removal operations and the condition of the parking lot on the relevant date, defendant failed to meet its burden of whether it created or exacerbated a hazard (see Prenderville v. International Service Systems, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 334, 781 N.Y.S.2d 110 [2004] ).
Accordingly, since North Atlantic failed to meet its burden on the motion for summary judgment, such motion was properly denied by the Supreme Court regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's 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 [1985]; Raynor-Brown v. Garden City Plaza Assoc., 305 A.D.2d 572, 573-574, 759 N.Y.S.2d 397 [2003] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 17, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)