Brightley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brightley v. City of New York

29 A.D.3d 926, 815 N.Y.S.2d 731

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

DecidedMay 30, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 926 (Brightley v. City of New York) 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

Brightley v. City of New York, 29 A.D.3d 926, 815 N.Y.S.2d 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 28, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Neither the defendant nor the plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although a defendant has no duty to remove snow during an ongoing storm, a defendant may be held liable where that party’s snow-removal efforts create a hazardous condition or exacerbate a natural hazard created by the storm (see Grillo v Brooklyn Hosp., 280 AD2d 452 [927]*927[2001]). Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant’s snow-removal efforts created the icy condition or exacerbated a natural hazard created by the storm. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Krausman and Mastro, 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, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 28, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Neither the defendant nor the plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although a defendant has no duty to remove snow during an ongoing storm, a defendant may be held liable where that party’s snow-removal efforts create a hazardous condition or exacerbate a natural hazard created by the storm (see Grillo v Brooklyn Hosp., 280 AD2d 452 [927]*927[2001]). Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant’s snow-removal efforts created the icy condition or exacerbated a natural hazard created by the storm. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Krausman and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 926, 815 N.Y.S.2d 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brightley-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack