SANTANA v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants–Respondents. (2020)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered December 11, 2018, which denied the motion of defendants Miguel Melendez and Jason Melendez for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross claims asserted against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants demonstrated prima facie that their property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff allegedly fell was a one- or two-family, owner-occupied residence, exempt from the sidewalk snow-removal obligations imposed by Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 7–210(b) (see Rios v. Acosta, 8 A.D.3d 183, 185, 779 N.Y.S.2d 469 [1st Dept. 2004]). Contrary to plaintiff's argument, defendants' deposition testimony established that they resided in the property, and plaintiff offered no evidence to raise an issue of fact. Even if they were required to clear the sidewalk, they would not be liable because plaintiff's accident occurred at 6:30 a.m., and Administrative Code § 16–123(a) gives landowners a four-hour grace period to clear snow and ice, not including the period between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m (Jakubowski v. Axton Owner LLC, 156 A.D.3d 509, 65 N.Y.S.3d 444 [1st Dept. 2017]).

Furthermore, defendants demonstrated that they did not create or cause the alleged hazardous condition (see Lai–Hor Ng Yiu v. Crevatas, 103 A.D.3d 691, 691, 962 N.Y.S.2d 158 [2d Dept. 2013]; Rios v. Acosta, 8 A.D.3d at 184–185, 779 N.Y.S.2d 469). Defendant Miguel Melendez testified that he did not shovel the night before the accident occurred because he did not see any snow, and that he salted the sidewalk at 1:30 a.m., about five hours prior to plaintiff's fall. An employee from co-defendant the City of Department of Sanitation testified that while he did not know whether a crew member he supervised had shoveled the sidewalk, it was possible that the City had shoveled that area because a record log showed that crew members were working that night to clear snow and ice. On this record, any contention that defendants created or exacerbated a hazardous condition naturally caused by snow is purely speculative (see Encarnacion v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.3d 485, 73 N.Y.S.3d 429 [1st Dept. 2018]; Rios v. Acosta, 8 A.D.3d at 184–185, 779 N.Y.S.2d 469; compare Lopez v. City of New York, 290 A.D.2d 539, 736 N.Y.S.2d 628 [1st Dept. 2002]).