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.
Fernando RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Dyckman Gifts, Inc., Defendant-Respondent, “Perth” Equities Realty Co., Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
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.
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 94th St. Corp., 262 A.D.2d 169, 692 N.Y.S.2d 59, 60; Rhymer v. Nalpantidis, 232 A.D.2d 299, 648 N.Y.S.2d 916, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 814, 659 N.Y.S.2d 855, 681 N.E.2d 1302; Stewart v. Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 A.D.2d 731, 589 N.Y.S.2d 792). 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 94th St. Corp., supra, at 60; see also, Suntken v. 226 West 75th St., Inc., 258 A.D.2d 314, 685 N.Y.S.2d 217).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 29, 2000
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)