Bonfrisco v. Marlib Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonfrisco v. Marlib Corp.

30 A.D.2d 655, 291 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3695

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

DecidedJune 20, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 655 (Bonfrisco v. Marlib Corp.) 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

Bonfrisco v. Marlib Corp., 30 A.D.2d 655, 291 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. While an alteration of the condition of the sidewalk may have taken place following the snow removal, there was no evidence that the defendant-appellant’s cleaning operation either caused or created the two-foot square patch of thin ice upon which the plaintiff slipped. The claim of increased hazard, moreover, is not supported by the evidence that as an additional precaution the entire sidewalk had been salted down. It may well be that the patch of thin ice was caused by the freezing of the wet surface of the walk at 5 o’clock of a January evening, or it may well have resulted from persons tracking slush into the area from the 11% inches of snow which stopped falling at 4:00 a.m. on the day of the accident. As the record stands, however, liability may not be fastened upon the defendant-appellant by the mere showing that an isolated thin patch of ice was present some hours after snow removal. (Cruz v. City of New York, 23 A D 2d 491, affd. 17 N Y 2d 717; Golub v. City of New York, 201 Misc. 866 [Breitel, J.], [656]*656affd. 282 App. Div. 666.) Concur — Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Tilzer, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. While an alteration of the condition of the sidewalk may have taken place following the snow removal, there was no evidence that the defendant-appellant’s cleaning operation either caused or created the two-foot square patch of thin ice upon which the plaintiff slipped. The claim of increased hazard, moreover, is not supported by the evidence that as an additional precaution the entire sidewalk had been salted down. It may well be that the patch of thin ice was caused by the freezing of the wet surface of the walk at 5 o’clock of a January evening, or it may well have resulted from persons tracking slush into the area from the 11% inches of snow which stopped falling at 4:00 a.m. on the day of the accident. As the record stands, however, liability may not be fastened upon the defendant-appellant by the mere showing that an isolated thin patch of ice was present some hours after snow removal. (Cruz v. City of New York, 23 A D 2d 491, affd. 17 N Y 2d 717; Golub v. City of New York, 201 Misc. 866 [Breitel, J.], [656]*656affd. 282 App. Div. 666.) Concur — Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Tilzer, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 655, 291 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonfrisco-v-marlib-corp-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack