Burgess v. Memorial Sloan Kettering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgess v. Memorial Sloan Kettering

237 A.D.2d 148, 655 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2399

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 148 (Burgess v. Memorial Sloan Kettering) 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

Burgess v. Memorial Sloan Kettering, 237 A.D.2d 148, 655 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered October 27,1995, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted in view of the climatological report for the day in question, which shows that plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall on snow and ice occurred during the course of a snow storm, and because liability may not be imposed on a property owner under such circumstances absent proof of "a reasonably sufficient time from the end of the storm to remedy the condition” (Arcuri v Vitola, 196 AD2d 519, 520). Nor can plaintiff be heard to argue that she should have been granted leave to amend her complaint to include a claim of detrimental reliance when she did not request such relief from the IAS Court (see, Romar v Alli, 120 AD2d 420, 422). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered October 27,1995, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted in view of the climatological report for the day in question, which shows that plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall on snow and ice occurred during the course of a snow storm, and because liability may not be imposed on a property owner under such circumstances absent proof of "a reasonably sufficient time from the end of the storm to remedy the condition” (Arcuri v Vitola, 196 AD2d 519, 520). Nor can plaintiff be heard to argue that she should have been granted leave to amend her complaint to include a claim of detrimental reliance when she did not request such relief from the IAS Court (see, Romar v Alli, 120 AD2d 420, 422). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 148, 655 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-memorial-sloan-kettering-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack