Carthans v. Grenadier Realty Corp.

38 A.D.3d 489, 832 N.Y.S.2d 234
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 6, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 489 (Carthans v. Grenadier Realty 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
Carthans v. Grenadier Realty Corp., 38 A.D.3d 489, 832 N.Y.S.2d 234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated January 13, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when, on February 21, 2003, at approximately 7:45 a.m., he slipped and fell on ice on a makeshift path located between the curb to a parking lot and a concrete walkway. The defendants, who manage and own the premises, respectively, sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that they owed no duty to clear snow and ice from an unpaved area which was not intended to be a public walkway.

The defendants did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because they failed to establish that the adjacent concrete walkway was passable at the time of the plaintiffs accident (see Malley v Alice Hyde Hosp. Assn., 297 AD2d 425, 425 [2002]; cf. Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474, 475 [1998]). Moreover, the defendants failed to present evidence from an individual with personal knowledge of the defendants’ routine snow removal procedures at the time of the occurrence (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Since the defendants did not meet their burden, there is no need to address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs submissions in opposition to the defendants’ motion (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Santucci, J.E, Goldstein, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Drake v. Sagbolt, LLC
112 A.D.3d 1132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ross v. Dd 11th Avenue, LLC
109 A.D.3d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Mikelatos v. Theofilaktidis
105 A.D.3d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Lattimore v. First Mineola Co.
60 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hutchinson v. Medical Data Resources, Inc.
54 A.D.3d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Marmol v. North Isle Village, Inc.
48 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.3d 489, 832 N.Y.S.2d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carthans-v-grenadier-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2007.