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.
Jennifer AURILIA, appellant, v. EMPIRE REALTY ASSOCIATES, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated October 9, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a patch of ice on a handicap access pedestrian ramp which led to a parking lot of a shopping center owned by the defendant. The plaintiff walked down the ramp and then walked back up the ramp soon thereafter, and fell. She did not see the “clear” ice at any time before she fell. Snow had fallen approximately eight days before the accident, and the temperature fluctuated between measurements both above and below the freezing point in the days following the snowfall.
The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the ice that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Kaplan v. DePetro, 51 A.D.3d 730, 731, 858 N.Y.S.2d 304; DeFalco v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 824, 832 N.Y.S.2d 632).
Under the circumstances, it would be speculative to assume that even if the icy condition were the result of residual moisture left by the snow that fell eight days before the accident, the ice itself had been there for a sufficient period of time to give the defendant constructive notice of that condition (see Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972, 622 N.Y.S.2d 496, 646 N.E.2d 798; Christal v. Ramapo Cirque Homeowners Assoc., 51 A.D.3d 846, 857 N.Y.S.2d 729; Bonney v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 404, 838 N.Y.S.2d 151; Robinson v. Trade Link Am., 39 A.D.3d 616, 833 N.Y.S.2d 243; DeVivo v. Sparago, 287 A.D.2d 535, 731 N.Y.S.2d 501). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 27, 2009
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)