Baillet v. Auerbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baillet v. Auerbach

277 A.D.2d 335, 717 N.Y.S.2d 215, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12062

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 335 (Baillet v. Auerbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baillet v. Auerbach, 277 A.D.2d 335, 717 N.Y.S.2d 215, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 21, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436; Bordonaro v Garcia, 242 AD2d 256; Arcuri v Vitolo, 196 AD2d 519), and whether the icy condition had existed for a “ ‘sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant [s’] employees to discover and remedy it’ ” (Bykofsky v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets, 210 AD2d 280, 281; see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836).

Furthermore, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendants created the icy condition when snow shovelled by their employees melted and refroze (see, Grizzaffi v Paparodero Holding Corp., 261 AD2d 437; Roca v Gerardi, 243 AD2d 616; Kay v Flying Goose, 203 AD2d 332). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 21, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition (see, Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436; Bordonaro v Garcia, 242 AD2d 256; Arcuri v Vitolo, 196 AD2d 519), and whether the icy condition had existed for a “ ‘sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant [s’] employees to discover and remedy it’ ” (Bykofsky v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets, 210 AD2d 280, 281; see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836).

Furthermore, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendants created the icy condition when snow shovelled by their employees melted and refroze (see, Grizzaffi v Paparodero Holding Corp., 261 AD2d 437; Roca v Gerardi, 243 AD2d 616; Kay v Flying Goose, 203 AD2d 332). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 335, 717 N.Y.S.2d 215, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baillet-v-auerbach-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack