Epstein v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Epstein v. City of New York

250 A.D.2d 547, 673 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6152

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

DecidedMay 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 547 (Epstein 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

Epstein v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 547, 673 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 7, [548]*5481997, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Meteorological evidence established subfreezing temperatures throughout the period February 8 to 11, 1994, snowfalls of more than nine inches on February 8 and 9, and a snowfall of almost 13 inches on February 11, which, according to plaintiff, ended by 11:00 a.m., some five hours before she fell. With respect to these same snowfalls, this Court has held that defendant City was under no obligation to remove the snow and ice as late as February 14 (Sing Ping Cheung v City of New York, 234 AD2d 91; see also, Martinez v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 238 AD2d 286). Thus, it does not avail plaintiff to speculate that she fell on icy accumulation attributable to the “old” February 8 snowfall (see, Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, 384, affd 57 NY2d 932). We also note the City’s proof that between February 7 and 13, 1994, neither it nor any contractor hired by it removed snow from the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, and the absence of any rebutting evidence. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 7, [548]*5481997, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Meteorological evidence established subfreezing temperatures throughout the period February 8 to 11, 1994, snowfalls of more than nine inches on February 8 and 9, and a snowfall of almost 13 inches on February 11, which, according to plaintiff, ended by 11:00 a.m., some five hours before she fell. With respect to these same snowfalls, this Court has held that defendant City was under no obligation to remove the snow and ice as late as February 14 (Sing Ping Cheung v City of New York, 234 AD2d 91; see also, Martinez v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 238 AD2d 286). Thus, it does not avail plaintiff to speculate that she fell on icy accumulation attributable to the “old” February 8 snowfall (see, Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, 384, affd 57 NY2d 932). We also note the City’s proof that between February 7 and 13, 1994, neither it nor any contractor hired by it removed snow from the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, and the absence of any rebutting evidence. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 547, 673 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epstein-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack