Camacho v. Ezras Yisrael, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camacho v. Ezras Yisrael, Inc.

221 A.D.2d 275, 634 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12186

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 275 (Camacho v. Ezras Yisrael, Inc.) 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

Camacho v. Ezras Yisrael, Inc., 221 A.D.2d 275, 634 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about June 7, 1995, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied where the deposition testimony of appellant’s own employee established that both he and a co-employee conducted snow removal operations on the sidewalk in front of the store on days when it snowed immediately prior to plaintiff’s fall, including the morning of the accident. Defendant failed to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as material issues of fact exist as to whether defendant’s snow removal prior to plaintiff’s fall created a dangerous condition or increased the natural hazard (see, Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about June 7, 1995, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied where the deposition testimony of appellant’s own employee established that both he and a co-employee conducted snow removal operations on the sidewalk in front of the store on days when it snowed immediately prior to plaintiff’s fall, including the morning of the accident. Defendant failed to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as material issues of fact exist as to whether defendant’s snow removal prior to plaintiff’s fall created a dangerous condition or increased the natural hazard (see, Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 275, 634 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-ezras-yisrael-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack