Haggerty v. Mangano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haggerty v. Mangano

263 A.D.2d 430, 693 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8441

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

DecidedJuly 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 430 (Haggerty v. Mangano) 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

Haggerty v. Mangano, 263 A.D.2d 430, 693 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New [431]*431York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered September 15, 1998, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff-tenant, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff-tenant in the premises slipped on ice on the stoop of the building as she exited, fracturing her ankle. The accident happened approximately 75 minutes after a storm had deposited snow and ice in the area. Prior to the accident, defendants, or their agent, had cleared a path down the front steps.

As found by the IAS Court, there is a material issue of fact as to whether defendants’ snow and ice removal prior to plaintiffs fall created a dangerous condition or increased the natural hazard (see, Stoller v Riverbay Corp., 222 AD2d 343). Further, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a visitor to the premises that day who was present when a tenant complained of the icy condition of the steps to defendants’ agents after the partial removal of snow and ice and before plaintiffs accident. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New [431]*431York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered September 15, 1998, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff-tenant, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff-tenant in the premises slipped on ice on the stoop of the building as she exited, fracturing her ankle. The accident happened approximately 75 minutes after a storm had deposited snow and ice in the area. Prior to the accident, defendants, or their agent, had cleared a path down the front steps.

As found by the IAS Court, there is a material issue of fact as to whether defendants’ snow and ice removal prior to plaintiffs fall created a dangerous condition or increased the natural hazard (see, Stoller v Riverbay Corp., 222 AD2d 343). Further, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a visitor to the premises that day who was present when a tenant complained of the icy condition of the steps to defendants’ agents after the partial removal of snow and ice and before plaintiffs accident. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 430, 693 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haggerty-v-mangano-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack