Kay v. Flying Goose, Inc.

203 A.D.2d 332, 610 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 11, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 332 (Kay v. Flying Goose, 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.

Bluebook
Kay v. Flying Goose, Inc., 203 A.D.2d 332, 610 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), entered August 25, 1992, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

It is well settled that "a party in possession or control of real property may be held liable for a hazardous condition created on its premises as the result of the accumulation of snow or ice during a storm only after the lapse of a reasonable time for taking protective measures subsequent to the cessation of the storm” (Newsome v Cservak, 130 AD2d 637; see also, Cerra v Perk Dev., 197 AD2d 851; Chih Hong Shen v Neufeld, 196 AD2d 804; Arcuri v Vitolo, 196 AD2d 519; Rothrock v Cottom, 115 AD2d 242; Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, 384, affd 57 NY2d 932). All the evidence presented by the parties in this case indicated that the accident in question occurred while the storm was still in progress. Accordingly, the defendants could not be held liable for the alleged hazardous condition caused by the snow and ice on their premises.

We have examined the plaintiff’s contention that a question of fact remains as to whether the alleged snow removal technique employed by the defendant Flying Goose, Inc., [333]*333exacerbated the natural hazard created by the snowstorm, and find it to be without merit. The testimony of the plaintiff indicates that she fell on a patch of ice concealed by a layer of snow which had neither been shovelled nor treated with salt or sand. Accordingly, the defendants herein had clearly not increased the natural hazards which were created by the storm (see, Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402). Mengano, P. J., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ali v. Village of Pleasantville
95 A.D.3d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wohlars v. Town of Islip
71 A.D.3d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Friedman v. Stauber
18 A.D.3d 606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Reiss v. Bottari
300 A.D.2d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Powell v. MLG Hillside Associates, L.P.
290 A.D.2d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Patane v. City of New York
284 A.D.2d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Trainor v. Dayton Seaside Associates No. 3
282 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Grillo v. Brooklyn Hospital
280 A.D.2d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Baillet v. Auerbach
277 A.D.2d 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Ortiz v. Long Island Railroad
270 A.D.2d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Kennedy v. C & C New Main Street Corp.
269 A.D.2d 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Bell v. New York City Housing Authority
269 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Martin v. Pasternack, Popish & Reiff
259 A.D.2d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Baum v. Knoll Farm
259 A.D.2d 456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Mangieri v. Prime Hospitality Corp.
251 A.D.2d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Boskey v. Gazza Properties, Inc.
248 A.D.2d 344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Henry v. Plotka
244 A.D.2d 388 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Fuks v. New York City Transit Authority
243 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Tillman v. J. DeBenedictis & Sons Building Corp.
237 A.D.2d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Wall v. Village of Mineola
237 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 A.D.2d 332, 610 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kay-v-flying-goose-inc-nyappdiv-1994.