Rhymer v. Nalpantidis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rhymer v. Nalpantidis

232 A.D.2d 299, 648 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10523

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 299 (Rhymer v. Nalpantidis) 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

Rhymer v. Nalpantidis, 232 A.D.2d 299, 648 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, [300]*300Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 1, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. It is well settled that an owner of property owes no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of his or her premises unless he or she made the sidewalk more hazardous (Stewart v Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731). Since there is no showing that the owner of the premises or its agents created a dangerous condition on the abutting sidewalk, or indeed made any attempt to remove the snow and ice before the accident occurred, the complaint must be dismissed (supra). We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, [300]*300Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 1, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. It is well settled that an owner of property owes no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of his or her premises unless he or she made the sidewalk more hazardous (Stewart v Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731). Since there is no showing that the owner of the premises or its agents created a dangerous condition on the abutting sidewalk, or indeed made any attempt to remove the snow and ice before the accident occurred, the complaint must be dismissed (supra). We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 299, 648 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhymer-v-nalpantidis-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack