Gibbs v. Rochdale Village, Inc.
This text of 282 A.D.2d 706 (Gibbs v. Rochdale Village, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
Ordinarily, there is no duty to remove snow and ice during an ongoing storm. However, if one takes steps to do so, liability may result if those efforts create a hazardous condition or exacerbate a natural hazard created by the storm (see, Grillo v Brooklyn Hosp., 280 AD2d 452; Suntken v 226 W. 75th St., 258 AD2d 314). It is undisputed that it was snowing when the plaintiff slipped and fell. Nevertheless, the plaintiff asserts that the sheet of ice upon which he slipped was created by the appellant’s snow removal activities. The plaintiffs contention, argued in opposition to the appellant’s prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, is not supported by any evidence other than his own speculation, which is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972; Bernstein v City of New York, 69 NY2d 1020; Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., 266 AD2d 384). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
282 A.D.2d 706, 724 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-rochdale-village-inc-nyappdiv-2001.