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.
Kendall TRACY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 29–33 CONVENT AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2019, which, inter alia, in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on the sidewalk, denied defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants' submission of climatological records and the affidavit of a meteorologist were not sufficient to conclusively establish that a winter storm was in progress at the time of the accident (see De Los Santos v. 4915 Broadway Realty LLC, 58 A.D.3d 465, 869 N.Y.S.2d 905 [1st Dept. 2009]). There was no precipitation falling at the time that plaintiff fell, and defendants have not established that there were more than trace amounts of snow falling in the several hours leading up to the fall (id.; Powell v. MLG Hillside Assoc., 290 A.D.2d 345, 346, 737 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2002]). Defendants also failed to show that plaintiff's fall was not caused by preexisting ice, which plaintiff observed at the accident location two days before he fell (see Perez v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., 173 A.D.3d 597, 103 N.Y.S.3d 404 [1st Dept. 2019]).
Factual issues also remain surrounding the cross claims asserted by defendants 29–33 Convent Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation and Midas Management Assoc., Inc. against defendant laundromat, a commercial tenant, which preclude resolution by summary judgment. While Express claims that Convent and Midas, as owner and managing agent, had the duty to maintain the sidewalk, the lease contained a snow removal provision and employees of both Convent and Express engaged in snow removal efforts in the area. Nor is Midas entitled to summary judgment on its claim that it was not in control of the premises, as there remain factual issues surrounding its duties as the building's managing agent.
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.
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.
Docket No: 11002
Decided: January 28, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)