ZAPATA v. FINKELSTEIN (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Emma ZAPATA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Reuven FINKELSTEIN, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Decided: March 16, 1999

SULLIVAN, J.P., ROSENBERGER, TOM and ANDRIAS, JJ.

Barry D. Weiss, for plaintiff-respondent. Angelo Rios, for defendant-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.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network