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.
Vanessa BRUNSON, et al., Respondents, v. NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), entered September 26, 2000, and (2) an interlocutory judgment of the same court, entered November 30, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d 718); and it is further,
ORDERED that the interlocutory judgment is reversed, on the law, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff Vanessa Brunson (hereinafter the plaintiff) was injured when she slipped and fell on black ice as she was walking on a private sidewalk leading to the front entrance of a movie theater owned and operated by the defendants. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
It is well settled that a party in control of real property may be held liable for a hazardous condition created on its premises by precipitation only if the property owner or possessor had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see, Putnam v. Stout, 38 N.Y.2d 607, 612, 381 N.Y.S.2d 848, 345 N.E.2d 319) and had a reasonably sufficient time from the cessation of the precipitation to remedy the condition caused by it (see, Arcuri v. Vitolo, 196 A.D.2d 519, 520, 601 N.Y.S.2d 173).
Here, the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of demonstrating that the defendants had a reasonably sufficient time from the cessation of the storm, which occurred on the day of her accident, to clear the sidewalk of snow and ice. In this regard, we note that while the plaintiff's expert witness described the weather conditions as they progressed throughout the day, he never expressly stated when the storm ended.
Therefore, there is no rational basis to support a finding that the defendants had reasonable opportunity to remedy the alleged hazardous condition following the cessation of the precipitation, or that they had constructive notice of the condition (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145). The judgment is therefore reversed and the complaint dismissed.
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: March 11, 2002
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)