Rina v. Windemere Home Owners Ass'n

66 A.D.3d 756, 887 N.Y.S.2d 231
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 13, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 A.D.3d 756 (Rina v. Windemere Home Owners Ass'n) 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
Rina v. Windemere Home Owners Ass'n, 66 A.D.3d 756, 887 N.Y.S.2d 231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant DeBenedittis Landscaping, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, [757]*757Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated July 17, 2008, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Dale Rina (hereinafter the plaintiff) was injured when he slipped and fell on ice in the driveway of a home owned by defendants Robert Silverman and Debra Laitman Silverman (hereinafter together the Silvermans), which was located inside a gated community. Thereafter, the plaintiff and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced this action against, among others, the Silvermans and the defendant DeBenedittis Landscaping, Inc., the company responsible under a contract with the defendant Windemere Home Owners Association, Inc., for snow removal services.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. It did not establish, prima facie, that it did not launch a force or instrumentality of harm, or create or exacerbate a dangerous condition (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]; Cornell v 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC, 51 AD3d 469 [2008]; Prenderville v International Serv. Sys., Inc., 10 AD3d 334, 337 [2004]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 32082(H).]

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

Related

Schwint v. Bank Street Commons, LLC
74 A.D.3d 1312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mosca v. OCE Holding, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 1103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 A.D.3d 756, 887 N.Y.S.2d 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rina-v-windemere-home-owners-assn-nyappdiv-2009.