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.
Lillie MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL CHAUNCEY M. HOOPER TOWERS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 9, 2007, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a dangerous ice and snow condition on the sidewalk in front of defendant's premises, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.
Plaintiff's deposition testimony that it was snowing when she fell at around 9:00 a.m., that it had been snowing the entire night before, that the entire sidewalk was white with snow, and that she slipped on snow, not ice, satisfied defendant's initial burden of showing that plaintiff fell because of a dangerous snow condition created by a storm in progress (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y., § 16-123[a] ). In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit stating that she slipped on ice as well as snow and that while there were snow flurries the morning of her accident, there was no accumulation; photographs of a sidewalk with patches of ice, identified by plaintiff at her deposition as fairly and accurately depicting the area of sidewalk where she fell; and climatological data showing that on the day before plaintiff's fall, New York City had .92 inches of “rain” and “drizzle” between 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., and that there was no precipitation on the day of plaintiff's fall. An issue of fact exists as to whether, inter alia, plaintiff was mistaken when she testified at deposition that it was snowing when she fell (see Howard v. J.A.J. Realty Enters., 283 A.D.2d 854, 855-856, 726 N.Y.S.2d 159 [2001] [summary judgment in defendant's favor precluded by conflict between plaintiff's deposition testimony that it was snowing and affidavit of meteorological expert that it was not]; cf. Powell v. Hillside Assoc., 290 A.D.2d 345, 345, 737 N.Y.S.2d 27 [2002] [evidence of storm in progress especially persuasive when based on analysis of licensed meteorologist] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
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 28, 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)