Coley v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coley v. New York City Housing Authority

124 A.D.3d 492, 998 N.Y.S.2d 302

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2015

Docket13988 305176/11

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 492 (Coley v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Coley v. New York City Housing Authority, 124 A.D.3d 492, 998 N.Y.S.2d 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about January 17, 2014 which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on ice in defendant’s parking lot. Issues of fact exist concerning the sufficiency of defendant’s snow and ice removal efforts, whether such efforts could have created or exacerbated the icy condition that caused plaintiff’s fall, and whether defendant had notice of the condition (see Sprague v Profoods Rest. Supply, LLC, 77 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2010]; Lebron v Napa Realty Corp., 65 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about January 17, 2014 which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on ice in defendant’s parking lot. Issues of fact exist concerning the sufficiency of defendant’s snow and ice removal efforts, whether such efforts could have created or exacerbated the icy condition that caused plaintiff’s fall, and whether defendant had notice of the condition (see Sprague v Profoods Rest. Supply, LLC, 77 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2010]; Lebron v Napa Realty Corp., 65 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 492, 998 N.Y.S.2d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coley-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack