Hesson v. Coppola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hesson v. Coppola

302 A.D.2d 857, 753 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1052

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 857 (Hesson v. Coppola) 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

Hesson v. Coppola, 302 A.D.2d 857, 753 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered February 28, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, a tenant in a duplex home owned by defendant, allegedly fell on a patch of ice on the driveway that she shared with defendant and sustained injuries. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that the ice had formed after she came home at approximately 4:00 p.m. and before she fell at approximately 8:00 p.m. and that she was unable to see the ice because a light bulb in one of the two lights illuminating the driveway had burned out.

Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that she lacked constructive notice of the patch of ice on the driveway (see generally Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838), that she had no duty to provide reasonable illumination to the exterior of the duplex home (see Miccoli v Kotz, 278 AD2d 460) and that her failure to replace the light bulb was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries (see id.). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered February 28, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, a tenant in a duplex home owned by defendant, allegedly fell on a patch of ice on the driveway that she shared with defendant and sustained injuries. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that the ice had formed after she came home at approximately 4:00 p.m. and before she fell at approximately 8:00 p.m. and that she was unable to see the ice because a light bulb in one of the two lights illuminating the driveway had burned out.

Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that she lacked constructive notice of the patch of ice on the driveway (see generally Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838), that she had no duty to provide reasonable illumination to the exterior of the duplex home (see Miccoli v Kotz, 278 AD2d 460) and that her failure to replace the light bulb was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries (see id.). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 857, 753 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hesson-v-coppola-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack