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.
Alicia STALKER, an Infant, by her Mother and Natural Guardian, Susan STALKER, and Susan Stalker, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CRESTVIEW CADILLAC CORP., d/b/a Crest Cadillac Oldsmobile, Brian Barr and James Bradshaw, Defendants-Appellants.
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by 15-year-old Alicia Stalker (plaintiff) when she slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot owned by defendants Brian Barr and James Bradshaw and leased to defendant Crestview Cadillac Corp., d/b/a Crest Cadillac Oldsmobile. Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that plaintiff's injuries were caused by a storm in progress (cf., Siegel v. Molino, 236 A.D.2d 879, 653 N.Y.S.2d 759). Defendants submitted evidence that it was snowing at the time of plaintiff's fall and that 5 to 7 inches of snow fell that day. However, defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff in which she testified that she fell on ice under an accumulation of approximately two feet of snow. Thus, there is an issue of fact whether plaintiff's fall was caused by snow and ice that was present prior to the date on which plaintiff fell.
Defendants also failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they lacked constructive notice of the conditions that caused plaintiff to fall (see, Duman v. City of Buffalo, 269 A.D.2d 848, 849, 703 N.Y.S.2d 800). Defendants “failed to prove that the ice formed so close in time to the accident that they could not reasonably have been expected to notice and remedy the condition” (Jordan v. Musinger, 197 A.D.2d 889, 890, 602 N.Y.S.2d 289). Defendants' failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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: June 08, 2001
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)