Ettari v. 30 Rampasture Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ettari v. 30 Rampasture Owners, Inc.

15 A.D.3d 611, 790 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1992

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.H.O.), dated July 16, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the ice and snow in the driveway area where the plaintiff allegedly fell was open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability, but rather raises a triable issue of fact regarding comparative negligence (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Luksch v Blum-Rohl Fishing Corp., 3 AD 3d 475 [2004]; Kraeling v Leading Edge Elec., 2 AD3d 789 [2003]; Grgich v City of New York, 2 AD3d 680 [2003]; Moloney v Wal-Mart Stores, 2 AD3d 508 [2003]; Massucci v Amoco Oil Co., 292 AD2d 351 [2002]).

Further, the mere fact that the plaintiff may have fallen in an ice and snow-covered area adjacent to the driveway, which also allegedly was under the defendants’ control, rather than on the uncleared driveway itself, is not sufficient to relieve the defendants of liability (see Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474 [1998]; Malley v Alice Hyde Hosp. Assn., 297 AD2d 425 [2002]). Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.H.O.), dated July 16, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the ice and snow in the driveway area where the plaintiff allegedly fell was open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability, but rather raises a triable issue of fact regarding comparative negligence (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Luksch v Blum-Rohl Fishing Corp., 3 AD 3d 475 [2004]; Kraeling v Leading Edge Elec., 2 AD3d 789 [2003]; Grgich v City of New York, 2 AD3d 680 [2003]; Moloney v Wal-Mart Stores, 2 AD3d 508 [2003]; Massucci v Amoco Oil Co., 292 AD2d 351 [2002]).

Further, the mere fact that the plaintiff may have fallen in an ice and snow-covered area adjacent to the driveway, which also allegedly was under the defendants’ control, rather than on the uncleared driveway itself, is not sufficient to relieve the defendants of liability (see Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474 [1998]; Malley v Alice Hyde Hosp. Assn., 297 AD2d 425 [2002]). Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Ettari v. 30 Rampasture Owners, Inc., 15 A.D.3d 611, 790 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

15 A.D.3d 611 (Ettari v. 30 Rampasture Owners, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related