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.
KATHLEEN M. KORTHALS, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. LCB CAPITAL, LLC, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this slip and fall personal injury action, defendant property owner appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. According to defendant, Supreme Court should have granted its motion because there was a storm in progress when plaintiff slipped and fell on ice outside its apartment building in Kenmore, and it therefore had no duty to remedy the allegedly dangerous condition prior to the accident (see Solazzo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734, 735; Brierley v. Great Lakes Motor Corp., 41 AD3d 1159, 1160). We conclude that the court properly denied defendant's motion.
The meteorological records submitted by defendant in support of its motion establish that the alleged storm, which consisted of intermittent freezing rain and mist, ended no later than 4:52 a.m., when the last precipitation was recorded in the area. Plaintiff fell approximately four hours later, and radar imagery submitted by defendant showed that there were “mainly clear skies” in Kenmore at the time of the accident. In addition, the last freezing rain advisory was cancelled at 6:49 a.m., and there had been no freezing rain since 12:27 a.m. We thus agree with plaintiff that “[d]efendant[']s[ ] submissions establish that the storm had ended at the time of plaintiff's fall, and there is a triable issue of fact whether a reasonable period of time had passed since the abatement of the storm to impose a duty on the defendant[ ]” to remedy the dangerous icy condition caused by the alleged storm (Boarman v. Siegel, Kelleher and Kahn, 41 AD3d 1247, 1248; see Alexis v. City of New York, 111 AD3d 527, 528; Helms v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 49 AD3d 1287, 1288). Inasmuch as defendant failed to meet its initial burden, we need not review the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposing papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853).
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 13–01607
Decided: March 28, 2014
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)