Palazzo v. S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palazzo v. S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc.

105 A.D.2d 1017, 483 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21104

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1017 (Palazzo v. S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc.) 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

Palazzo v. S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc., 105 A.D.2d 1017, 483 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals (1) from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cobb, J.), entered June 8, 1983 in Ulster County, which granted the motion of defendant Village of New Paltz to dismiss the complaint against it, and (2) from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Klein, J.), entered April 26,1984 in Ulster County, which granted the motion of defendant S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiff sustained her injuries as the result of a fall on ice and/or packed snow which was allegedly permitted to accumulate on a public sidewalk in front of premises owned by defendant S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc. She attempted to impose liability on defendant Village of New Paltz by virtue of its failure to remove the condition (see City of Rochester v Campbell, 123 NY 405). As to defendant village, however, the complaint fails to allege compliance with CPLR 9804, requiring prior written notice of the condition or that the condition was caused by the affirmative negligence of defendant village. Accordingly, the complaint was insufficient as to defendant village and properly dismissed by Special Term (Drzewiecki v City of Buffalo, 51 AD2d 870; McCord v Village of Walden, 38 AD2d 741).

As to the corporate defendant, we agree with Special Term that this is a “classic public sidewalk case”. It is uncontested that the sidewalk is a public one, rather than private. Although the village charter requires an abutting owner to clear the sidewalk of snow and ice, it does not impose liability on the owner for injuries caused by the failure to do so. The record contains no proof that the snow and ice upon which plaintiff [1018]*1018slipped accumulated on the sidewalk other than by natural means. Under these circumstances, the corporate defendant is not liable for plaintiff’s injuries (see Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470, 475).

Orders and judgments affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals (1) from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cobb, J.), entered June 8, 1983 in Ulster County, which granted the motion of defendant Village of New Paltz to dismiss the complaint against it, and (2) from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Klein, J.), entered April 26,1984 in Ulster County, which granted the motion of defendant S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiff sustained her injuries as the result of a fall on ice and/or packed snow which was allegedly permitted to accumulate on a public sidewalk in front of premises owned by defendant S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc. She attempted to impose liability on defendant Village of New Paltz by virtue of its failure to remove the condition (see City of Rochester v Campbell, 123 NY 405). As to defendant village, however, the complaint fails to allege compliance with CPLR 9804, requiring prior written notice of the condition or that the condition was caused by the affirmative negligence of defendant village. Accordingly, the complaint was insufficient as to defendant village and properly dismissed by Special Term (Drzewiecki v City of Buffalo, 51 AD2d 870; McCord v Village of Walden, 38 AD2d 741).

As to the corporate defendant, we agree with Special Term that this is a “classic public sidewalk case”. It is uncontested that the sidewalk is a public one, rather than private. Although the village charter requires an abutting owner to clear the sidewalk of snow and ice, it does not impose liability on the owner for injuries caused by the failure to do so. The record contains no proof that the snow and ice upon which plaintiff [1018]*1018slipped accumulated on the sidewalk other than by natural means. Under these circumstances, the corporate defendant is not liable for plaintiff’s injuries (see Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470, 475).

Orders and judgments affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1017, 483 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palazzo-v-sphe-real-estate-inc-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack