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.
Donna M. CHAPMAN and Samuel Chapman, Individually and as Wife and Husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PYRAMID COMPANY OF BUFFALO, The Pyramid Companies, Walden Galleria LLC, Walden Galleria Enterprises, LLC, Pyramid Management Group, Inc., and Pyramid Walden Company, L.P., Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Donna M. Chapman (plaintiff) when she allegedly slipped and fell on snow and ice in the parking lot of a mall. Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, defendants met their initial burden by submitting evidence establishing that there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident (see Brierley v. Great Lakes Motor Corp., 41 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 837 N.Y.S.2d 451; Camacho v. Garcia, 273 A.D.2d 835, 709 N.Y.S.2d 738). In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to their allegation that the ice that caused the accident existed prior to the storm, and whether the precipitation from the ongoing storm was a proximate cause of plaintiff's fall (see Martin v. Wagner, 30 A.D.3d 733, 735, 816 N.Y.S.2d 243; Parker v. Rust Plant Servs., Inc., 9 A.D.3d 671, 672-673, 780 N.Y.S.2d 230; cf. Pacelli v. Pinsley, 267 A.D.2d 706, 707-708, 699 N.Y.S.2d 530). Plaintiffs' contention that the court erred in granting the motion because defendants failed to attach a copy of the pleadings to the motion papers is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us (see Provident Bank v. Giannasca, 55 A.D.3d 812, 866 N.Y.S.2d 289; Blazynski v. A. Gareleck & Sons, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 1168, 1169, 852 N.Y.S.2d 500, lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 11 N.Y.3d 825, 868 N.Y.S.2d 593, 897 N.E.2d 1077).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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 05, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)