Filius v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Filius v. New York City Housing Authority

2017 NY Slip Op 8495, 156 A.D.3d 434, 64 N.Y.S.3d 553

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2017

Docket5148

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8495 (Filius 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

Filius v. New York City Housing Authority, 2017 NY Slip Op 8495, 156 A.D.3d 434, 64 N.Y.S.3d 553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that plaintiff fell during a storm in progress. The certified meteorological records and plaintiff’s testimony demonstrate that it was snowing at the time of the accident (see Pippo v City of New York, 43 AD3d 303, 304 [1st Dept 2007]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant’s snow removal efforts created or exacerbated a hazardous condition (see Gleeson v New York City Tr. Auth., 74 AD3d 616, 617 [1st Dept 2010]). Plaintiff’s testimony that he fell on “dirty snow,” which could have fallen in the time between defendant’s snow removal and the accident, and his conclusory claim that defendant’s shoveling was inadequate, do not raise triable issues of fact (compare Baumann v Dawn Liqs., Inc., 148 AD3d 535, 537 [1st Dept 2017]).

Concur— Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that plaintiff fell during a storm in progress. The certified meteorological records and plaintiff’s testimony demonstrate that it was snowing at the time of the accident (see Pippo v City of New York, 43 AD3d 303, 304 [1st Dept 2007]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant’s snow removal efforts created or exacerbated a hazardous condition (see Gleeson v New York City Tr. Auth., 74 AD3d 616, 617 [1st Dept 2010]). Plaintiff’s testimony that he fell on “dirty snow,” which could have fallen in the time between defendant’s snow removal and the accident, and his conclusory claim that defendant’s shoveling was inadequate, do not raise triable issues of fact (compare Baumann v Dawn Liqs., Inc., 148 AD3d 535, 537 [1st Dept 2017]).

Concur— Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8495, 156 A.D.3d 434, 64 N.Y.S.3d 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filius-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack