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.
Pasquale ROMEO, et al., appellants, v. RONALD McDONALD HOUSE, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated July 22, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Ronald McDonald House which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Norman's Lakeville Exxon which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on clear ice in a parking lot owned by the defendant Ronald McDonald House (hereinafter RMH). Pursuant to an oral agreement, the defendant Norman's Lakeville Exxon (hereinafter NLE) performed snow removal services on the premises. NLE plowed the subject parking lot nine days before the accident occurred. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of the accident, it was cold and rain was falling.
As the movant, RMH established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the icy condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff to fall (see Zabbia v. Westwood, LLC, 18 A.D.3d 542, 795 N.Y.S.2d 319; Murphy v. 136 N. Blvd. Assoc., 304 A.D.2d 540, 757 N.Y.S.2d 582; Voss v. D & C Parking, 299 A.D.2d 346, 749 N.Y.S.2d 76). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' contention that the injured plaintiff slipped on ice from the prior snowstorm was based on sheer speculation, and they failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the icy condition was visible and apparent for a sufficient period of time to permit RMH to discover and remedy it (see Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972, 622 N.Y.S.2d 496, 646 N.E.2d 798; Katz v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 19 A.D.3d 371, 796 N.Y.S.2d 176; Burgos v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 436, 735 N.Y.S.2d 151; Dall v. Goldbaum, 293 A.D.2d 562, 742 N.Y.S.2d 307).
Additionally, in response to NLE's demonstration of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). NLE did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its snow removal contract with RMH (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485; Baratta v. Home Depot USA, 303 A.D.2d 434, 756 N.Y.S.2d 605). Additionally, the evidence failed to show that the oral agreement between NLE and RMH was exclusive and comprehensive and entirely displaced RMH's duty to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe manner (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., supra at 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485), or that NLE “launched a force or instrument of harm” (Moch Co., Inc. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 168, 159 N.E. 896), and thus created or exacerbated a hazardous condition, or that the plaintiffs detrimentally relied on NLE's continued performance of its contractual duties (see McConologue v. Summer St. Stamford Corp., 16 A.D.3d 468, 792 N.Y.S.2d 101; Bugiada v. Iko, 274 A.D.2d 368, 710 N.Y.S.2d 117).
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: January 24, 2006
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)