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.
BRENDA HYDE AND MICHAEL HYDE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS, v. TRANSCONTINENT RECORD SALES, INC., LEONARD SILVER, LEON TRINGALI, DOING BUSINESS AS LEON STUDIO ONE SCHOOL OF HAIR DESIGN AND CAREER TRAINING CENTER, DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs, individually and as husband and wife, commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Brenda Hyde (plaintiff) after she slipped and fell on snow or ice in the parking lot of the building of defendants-respondents (defendants). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them. Defendants “established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue whether plaintiff's fall occurred while a storm was in progress or within a reasonable time thereafter” (Santerre v. Golub Corp., 11 AD3d 945, 947; see Baia v Allright Parking Buffalo, Inc., 27 AD3d 1153, 1153–1154; Camacho v. Garcia, 273 A.D.2d 835, 835), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). Plaintiffs' claim that defendants created or exacerbated the hazard by shoveling but not salting the area in question was supported by only hearsay statements of defendants' employee and thus was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Candela v. City of New York, 8 AD3d 45, 47; see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, they did not establish that defendants' employee, who allegedly stated that he had shoveled but not salted the area in which the accident occurred, had the authority to speak on behalf of defendants. Plaintiffs therefore failed to establish that the employee's statements fell within an exception to the hearsay rule as “an admission binding on [defendants]” (Tyrrell v. Wal–Mart Stores, 97 N.Y.2d 650, 652; see generally Reed v. McCord, 160 N.Y. 330, 341).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 13–00702
Decided: November 08, 2013
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)