Marrero v. Milevoi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marrero v. Milevoi

227 A.D.2d 124, 641 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785

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

DecidedMay 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 124 (Marrero v. Milevoi) 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

Marrero v. Milevoi, 227 A.D.2d 124, 641 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Or[125]*125der, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Tar gum, J.), entered December 14, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants-appellants’ brief, denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 27, 1995, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as rendered academic by the order of December 14, 1995.

Plaintiffs submissions, which include an expert’s affidavit that the ice-encrusted ridge of old snow, on which plaintiff slid and which was concealed by new snowfall, could not have formed naturally but was created by appellants’ negligent shovelling after a prior storm, raise an issue of fact as to whether appellants made the sidewalk more dangerous than it otherwise would have been, precluding summary judgment in their favor (compare, Camacho v Ezras Yisrael, Inc., 221 AD2d 275, with Keane v City of New York, 208 AD2d 457). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Or[125]*125der, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Tar gum, J.), entered December 14, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants-appellants’ brief, denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 27, 1995, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as rendered academic by the order of December 14, 1995.

Plaintiffs submissions, which include an expert’s affidavit that the ice-encrusted ridge of old snow, on which plaintiff slid and which was concealed by new snowfall, could not have formed naturally but was created by appellants’ negligent shovelling after a prior storm, raise an issue of fact as to whether appellants made the sidewalk more dangerous than it otherwise would have been, precluding summary judgment in their favor (compare, Camacho v Ezras Yisrael, Inc., 221 AD2d 275, with Keane v City of New York, 208 AD2d 457). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 124, 641 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marrero-v-milevoi-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack