Keane v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keane v. City of New York

208 A.D.2d 457, 617 N.Y.S.2d 323

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 457 (Keane v. City of New York) 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

Keane v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 457, 617 N.Y.S.2d 323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered on or about November 10, 1993, granting the motion of defendant-respondent Arturo’s Park, Inc. and the cross motion of the remaining defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. It is well settled that an owner of property owes no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of his premises unless it is shown that the owner made the sidewalk more hazardous (Stewart v Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731). Since there was no showing that either the tenant of the premises or its owners/managing agent created a dangerous condition on the abutting sidewalk or even made any attempt to remove the snow and ice before the accident occurred, those parties could not have been liable (supra, at 732). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered on or about November 10, 1993, granting the motion of defendant-respondent Arturo’s Park, Inc. and the cross motion of the remaining defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. It is well settled that an owner of property owes no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of his premises unless it is shown that the owner made the sidewalk more hazardous (Stewart v Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731). Since there was no showing that either the tenant of the premises or its owners/managing agent created a dangerous condition on the abutting sidewalk or even made any attempt to remove the snow and ice before the accident occurred, those parties could not have been liable (supra, at 732). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 457, 617 N.Y.S.2d 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keane-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack