Nicoterra v. Clifford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicoterra v. Clifford

11 A.D.3d 942, 784 N.Y.S.2d 756, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11247

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 942 (Nicoterra v. Clifford) 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

Nicoterra v. Clifford, 11 A.D.3d 942, 784 N.Y.S.2d 756, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[943]*943Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered July 14, 2003. The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in a personal injury action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law with costs, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated and a new tried is granted.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this premises liability action seeking damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell bn ice outside a tavern. A jury trial was held, and defendants moved to dismiss at the close of plaintiffs proof. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion. In determining such a motion, “the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, 'who must be accorded “every favorable inference which may properly be drawn from the evidence” ’ ” (Smolen v Kmart, Inc. [appeal No. 2], 2 AD3d 1438, 1438 [2003], quoting Fernandes v Allstate Ins. Co., 305 AD2d 1065, 1065 [2003]). We agree with plaintiff that there is a triable issue of fact whether defendants had constructive notice of the icy condition. Plaintiff testified at trial that he saw ice in front of the side door of the tavern at 5:00 p.m. on the day of the incident, and other witnesses testified for plaintiff that the same area was icy at approximately 10:00 p.m., when plaintiff fell. Thus, there is a triable issue of fact whether the icy “condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident to permit defendants to discover it and take corrective action” (Boyko v Limowski, 223 AD2d 962, 964 [1996]). Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

[943]*943Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered July 14, 2003. The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in a personal injury action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law with costs, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated and a new tried is granted.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this premises liability action seeking damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell bn ice outside a tavern. A jury trial was held, and defendants moved to dismiss at the close of plaintiffs proof. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion. In determining such a motion, “the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, 'who must be accorded “every favorable inference which may properly be drawn from the evidence” ’ ” (Smolen v Kmart, Inc. [appeal No. 2], 2 AD3d 1438, 1438 [2003], quoting Fernandes v Allstate Ins. Co., 305 AD2d 1065, 1065 [2003]). We agree with plaintiff that there is a triable issue of fact whether defendants had constructive notice of the icy condition. Plaintiff testified at trial that he saw ice in front of the side door of the tavern at 5:00 p.m. on the day of the incident, and other witnesses testified for plaintiff that the same area was icy at approximately 10:00 p.m., when plaintiff fell. Thus, there is a triable issue of fact whether the icy “condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident to permit defendants to discover it and take corrective action” (Boyko v Limowski, 223 AD2d 962, 964 [1996]). Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 942, 784 N.Y.S.2d 756, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicoterra-v-clifford-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack