Jakubowski v. Axton Owner LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 8724, 156 A.D.3d 509, 65 N.Y.S.3d 444, 2017 WL 6375550
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 2017
Docket154493/14 5206 5205
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8724 (Jakubowski v. Axton Owner LLC) 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
Jakubowski v. Axton Owner LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 8724, 156 A.D.3d 509, 65 N.Y.S.3d 444, 2017 WL 6375550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered September 15, 2016, dismissing the complaint as against defendants Axton Owner LLC and Starrett Corporation (collectively Starrett defendants), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 30, 2016, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the Starrett defendants for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The Starrett defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment based upon the “storm in progress” defense via the climatological data relied upon by their expert meteorologist (see CPLR 4528; Perez v Canale, 50 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2008]). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue as to whether it had stopped snowing long enough for the Starrett defendants’ duty to clear the snow to have arisen. Even fully crediting plaintiff Henrik Jakubowski’s affidavit, it does not shed light on the snowfall during the relevant period, as Administrative Code of City of NY § 16-123 (a) gives landowners a four-hour grace period to clear snow and ice, not including the period between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore, the nonparty witness’s observation that it was not snowing at 5:00 p.m. is indicative of a temporary lull in the storm and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a duty to clear snow and ice (see e.g. Guntur v Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 485, 486 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Kahn, Gesmer, Kern and Moulton, JJ.

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

Related

Perez v. Canale
50 A.D.3d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Guntur v. Jetblue Airways Corp.
103 A.D.3d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 8724, 156 A.D.3d 509, 65 N.Y.S.3d 444, 2017 WL 6375550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jakubowski-v-axton-owner-llc-nyappdiv-2017.