Rodgers v. Earl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodgers v. Earl

249 A.D.2d 990, 671 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5162

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 990 (Rodgers v. Earl) 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

Rodgers v. Earl, 249 A.D.2d 990, 671 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, states a cause of action for negligence based upon the actions of defendants in removing snow from the public sidewalk abutting their property (see generally, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275).

The court also properly denied that part of defendants’ motion that, in the alternative, sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law, and that failure requires denial of their motion for summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Jordan v Musinger, 197 AD2d 889). Defendants failed to establish that their snow removal efforts did not create or increase a hazardous condition (see, Jiuz v [991]*991City of New York, 244 AD2d 298; Keane v City of New York, 208 AD2d 457; Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402, 403).

We agree with defendants, however, that they cannot be held liable to plaintiff based upon their alleged violation of the Village of Ilion Code (see, Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470, 475; Giotto v Gaetano, 178 AD2d 978, 979). The court, however, did not deny defendants’ motion on that ground. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Parker, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, states a cause of action for negligence based upon the actions of defendants in removing snow from the public sidewalk abutting their property (see generally, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275).

The court also properly denied that part of defendants’ motion that, in the alternative, sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law, and that failure requires denial of their motion for summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Jordan v Musinger, 197 AD2d 889). Defendants failed to establish that their snow removal efforts did not create or increase a hazardous condition (see, Jiuz v [991]*991City of New York, 244 AD2d 298; Keane v City of New York, 208 AD2d 457; Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402, 403).

We agree with defendants, however, that they cannot be held liable to plaintiff based upon their alleged violation of the Village of Ilion Code (see, Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470, 475; Giotto v Gaetano, 178 AD2d 978, 979). The court, however, did not deny defendants’ motion on that ground. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Parker, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 990, 671 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-v-earl-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack