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.
Gordon LILLIE and Joyce Lillie, Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants, v. WILMORITE, INC., doing Business as Greece Ridge Center, Defendant–Appellant–Respondent.
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Gordon Lillie when he slipped and fell on a patch of black ice in the parking lot of the Mall at Greece Ridge Center (mall). Defendant, the mall's property management company, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the ice upon which plaintiff slipped and fell. We agree with defendant on its appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. Defendant met its initial burden of demonstrating that it had neither actual notice of the icy condition in question nor constructive notice thereof, inasmuch as the patch of black ice was not “visible and apparent,” and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837; see Phillips v. Henry B'S, Inc., 85 AD3d 1665, 1666; Mullaney v. Royalty Props., LLC, 81 AD3d 1312).
In addition, plaintiffs' cross appeal must be dismissed because they are not aggrieved by the judgment and order denying defendant's motion (see generally Town of Massena v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp ., 45 N.Y.2d 482, 488). To the extent that plaintiffs contend as an alternative ground for affirmance that their meteorologist's expert affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and that the court erred in disregarding it (see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 545–546), we reject that contention. The climatological data upon which the meteorologist based his opinions was not submitted therewith, and thus the affidavit lacked an adequate factual foundation and was of no probative value (see Walter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 56 AD3d 1187; Schuster v. Dukarm, 38 AD3d 1358, 1359; see generally Romano v. Stanley, 90 N.Y.2d 444, 452). In any event, the expert's opinion would not change our determination herein (cf. Zemotel v. Jeld–Wen, Inc., 50 AD3d 1586).
It is hereby ORDERED that said cross appeal is unanimously dismissed, the judgment and order is reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: February 10, 2012
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)