Murdock v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murdock v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 249, 708 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928

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

DecidedMay 25, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 249 (Murdock 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

Murdock v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 249, 708 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered April 19, 1999, which denied the municipal defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[250]*250In this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on an accumulation of snow and ice at the intersection of 238th Street and Riverdale Avenue in the Bronx, the motion court properly denied the municipal defendant’s motion for summary judgment. A determination of whether the City was negligent in failing to clear the snow by the time of plaintiff’s accident “will * * * require a factual evaluation of the several factors impacting on the City’s actual ability, given physical and climatic conditions, and its capital and labor resources, to have cleared the location of ice and snow” (Crichton v Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, 255 AD2d 155, 156) and pretrial discovery has, thus far, yielded only scant meteorological evidence as to conditions on and about the occasion of the accident, and no evidence of the snow removal resources available to the City or of the City’s snow removal priorities at the time in question (cf., Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, affd 57 NY2d 932). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered April 19, 1999, which denied the municipal defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[250]*250In this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on an accumulation of snow and ice at the intersection of 238th Street and Riverdale Avenue in the Bronx, the motion court properly denied the municipal defendant’s motion for summary judgment. A determination of whether the City was negligent in failing to clear the snow by the time of plaintiff’s accident “will * * * require a factual evaluation of the several factors impacting on the City’s actual ability, given physical and climatic conditions, and its capital and labor resources, to have cleared the location of ice and snow” (Crichton v Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, 255 AD2d 155, 156) and pretrial discovery has, thus far, yielded only scant meteorological evidence as to conditions on and about the occasion of the accident, and no evidence of the snow removal resources available to the City or of the City’s snow removal priorities at the time in question (cf., Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, affd 57 NY2d 932). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 249, 708 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdock-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack