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.
Emma ZAPATA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Reuven FINKELSTEIN, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lottie Wilkens, J.), entered on or about July 7, 1998, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment was proper since the present record does not permit a determination, as a matter of law, that there was no interval between the snowfall and consequent accumulation upon which plaintiff claims to have injured herself (see, Croff v. Grand Union Co., 205 A.D.2d 856, 613 N.Y.S.2d 448), or that, if there was an interval, it was insufficient to permit defendant property owners to discover and remedy the hazard (see, Gordon v. Am. Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: March 16, 1999
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)