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.
Jita JABLONS, et al., respondents, v. PEAK HEALTH CLUB, INC., appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated June 22, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted the plaintiffs' cross motion is dismissed, as the appellant is not aggrieved by that portion of the order appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
An owner of property abutting a public sidewalk is under no duty to pedestrians to remove snow and ice that accumulates on the sidewalk unless a statute or ordinance specifically imposes tort liability for failing to do so, or the property owner made the sidewalk more hazardous through negligent snow removal efforts (see Rao v. Hatanian, 2 A.D.3d 616, 768 N.Y.S.2d 335; Shivers v. Price Bottom Stores, 289 A.D.2d 389, 734 N.Y.S.2d 235). The complaint alleged that the defendant's negligent snow removal efforts precipitated the fall of the plaintiff Jita Jablons (hereinafter the plaintiff).
The defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that its snow removal efforts did not cause, create, or exacerbate the icy condition that precipitated the plaintiff's injuries (see Knee v. Trump Vil. Constr. Corp., 15 A.D.3d 545, 791 N.Y.S.2d 576; Karalic v. City of New York, 307 A.D.2d 254, 762 N.Y.S.2d 271; Cody v. DiLorenzo, 304 A.D.2d 705, 757 N.Y.S.2d 789; Giamboi v. Manor House Owners Corp., 277 A.D.2d 201, 716 N.Y.S.2d 872). As such, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
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.
Decided: June 06, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)