Lotenberg v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lotenberg v. Long Island Railroad

34 A.D.3d 435, 824 N.Y.S.2d 144

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 435 (Lotenberg v. Long Island Railroad) 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

Lotenberg v. Long Island Railroad, 34 A.D.3d 435, 824 N.Y.S.2d 144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Gary Lotenberg appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated April 4, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant is denied.

A property owner will not be held liable for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow or ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazardous condition caused by the storm (see Fahey v Serota, 23 AD3d 335 [2005]; Dowden v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2003]). However, here, in light of the conflict in the testimony of the parties and the climatological data, issues of fact exist as to when the snow fall ceased and whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to ameliorate the hazardous condition, if any, caused by the snow fall. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant should have been denied. Adams, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Gary Lotenberg appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated April 4, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant is denied.

A property owner will not be held liable for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow or ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazardous condition caused by the storm (see Fahey v Serota, 23 AD3d 335 [2005]; Dowden v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2003]). However, here, in light of the conflict in the testimony of the parties and the climatological data, issues of fact exist as to when the snow fall ceased and whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to ameliorate the hazardous condition, if any, caused by the snow fall. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant should have been denied. Adams, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 435, 824 N.Y.S.2d 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lotenberg-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack