Kamara v. Revite One Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kamara v. Revite One Co.

95 A.D.3d 471, 942 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedMay 3, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 471 (Kamara v. Revite One Co.) 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

Kamara v. Revite One Co., 95 A.D.3d 471, 942 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley B. Green, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when, while walking on the sidewalk adjacent to defendant’s building, he slipped and fell on ice. Plaintiffs opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing that it lacked notice of the alleged icy condition failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition was present for a sufficient period of time before the accident that defendant would have had time to discover and remedy it (see Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972 [1994]). The record shows that it was snowing less than two hours before the accident occurred, and that defendant had performed snow removal less than four hours after the snowfall had stopped (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 16-123 [a]). Plaintiff’s contention that the ice upon which he slipped resulted from a snow accumulation that occurred several days earlier is speculative (see Bernstein v City of New York, 69 NY2d 1020 [1987]; Disla v City of New York, 65 AD3d 949 [2009]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley B. Green, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when, while walking on the sidewalk adjacent to defendant’s building, he slipped and fell on ice. Plaintiffs opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing that it lacked notice of the alleged icy condition failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition was present for a sufficient period of time before the accident that defendant would have had time to discover and remedy it (see Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972 [1994]). The record shows that it was snowing less than two hours before the accident occurred, and that defendant had performed snow removal less than four hours after the snowfall had stopped (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 16-123 [a]). Plaintiff’s contention that the ice upon which he slipped resulted from a snow accumulation that occurred several days earlier is speculative (see Bernstein v City of New York, 69 NY2d 1020 [1987]; Disla v City of New York, 65 AD3d 949 [2009]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 471, 942 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamara-v-revite-one-co-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack