Schnur v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schnur v. City of New York

298 A.D.2d 332, 750 N.Y.S.2d 267, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10419

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 332 (Schnur v. City of New York) 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

Schnur v. City of New York, 298 A.D.2d 332, 750 N.Y.S.2d 267, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered February 25, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of Rockledge Scaffold Corp. for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that appellant failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff produced evidence that shortly after the accident her father had observed a hole in the tin roof of a sidewalk bridge through which water dripped, thereby forming a large wet area at the precise location where plaintiff had fallen on ice. Ice had not existed anywhere else in the vicinity at the time of the accident. From this evidence, a jury could reasonably infer that appellant was negligent in its construction of the sidewalk bridge and thereby permitted water to drip and freeze upon the sidewalk (see Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376, 385-386; Phillips v Seril, 209 AD2d 496). Neither actual nor constructive notice need be [333]*333proven where a defendant is responsible for causing or creating a dangerous condition (Roundpoint v V.N.A., Inc., 207 AD2d 123, 126-127). Given the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the submitted proof, it was not essential for plaintiff to submit an expert affidavit in order to defeat appellant’s summary judgment motion.

The court was not obligated to reject plaintiffs father’s affidavit on the ground that plaintiff failed to identify her father as a witness until late in discovery, since plaintiff did make such a designation prior to filing a note of issue (compare Masucci-Matarazzo v Hoszowski, 291 AD2d 208; Robinson v New York City Hous. Auth., 183 AD2d 434).

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining contentions. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered February 25, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of Rockledge Scaffold Corp. for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that appellant failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff produced evidence that shortly after the accident her father had observed a hole in the tin roof of a sidewalk bridge through which water dripped, thereby forming a large wet area at the precise location where plaintiff had fallen on ice. Ice had not existed anywhere else in the vicinity at the time of the accident. From this evidence, a jury could reasonably infer that appellant was negligent in its construction of the sidewalk bridge and thereby permitted water to drip and freeze upon the sidewalk (see Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376, 385-386; Phillips v Seril, 209 AD2d 496). Neither actual nor constructive notice need be [333]*333proven where a defendant is responsible for causing or creating a dangerous condition (Roundpoint v V.N.A., Inc., 207 AD2d 123, 126-127). Given the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the submitted proof, it was not essential for plaintiff to submit an expert affidavit in order to defeat appellant’s summary judgment motion.

The court was not obligated to reject plaintiffs father’s affidavit on the ground that plaintiff failed to identify her father as a witness until late in discovery, since plaintiff did make such a designation prior to filing a note of issue (compare Masucci-Matarazzo v Hoszowski, 291 AD2d 208; Robinson v New York City Hous. Auth., 183 AD2d 434).

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining contentions. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 332, 750 N.Y.S.2d 267, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnur-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack