Sescila v. Great South Bay Estates Homeowner's Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sescila v. Great South Bay Estates Homeowner's Ass'n

69 A.D.3d 604, 892 N.Y.2d 474

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 604 (Sescila v. Great South Bay Estates Homeowner's 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

Sescila v. Great South Bay Estates Homeowner's Ass'n, 69 A.D.3d 604, 892 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

As the plaintiff approached the marina, she slipped on a large patch of ice that had accumulated on the sidewalk, fell, and allegedly sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, she saw that a sprinkler located on the grounds of the marina was operating.

Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced the instant action, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant negligently created the icy condition upon which she slipped and fell. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

On its motion, the defendant, whose “dock master” submitted an affidavit in which he maintained, inter alia, that he turned the marina’s sprinkler system off for the winter several weeks before the accident, demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) by establishing, inter alia, that it did not create the icy condition upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell (cf. Weising v Fairfield Props., 6 AD3d 427, 428 [2004]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence [605]*605raising a triable issue of fact, including the affidavit of a person who had visited the area of the accident four days after the date of the accident. The affiant recounted that, at that time, sprinklers at the marina were operating and, moreover, “thrusting water onto the sidewalks ... at and around the [mjarina.” Certain photographs taken by the affiant corroborated that assertion. This was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created the icy condition on which the plaintiff slipped (cf. Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470, 475 [1969]; Griffin v 19-20 Indus. City Assoc., LLC, 37 AD3d 412, 412-413 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

As the plaintiff approached the marina, she slipped on a large patch of ice that had accumulated on the sidewalk, fell, and allegedly sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, she saw that a sprinkler located on the grounds of the marina was operating.

Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced the instant action, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant negligently created the icy condition upon which she slipped and fell. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

On its motion, the defendant, whose “dock master” submitted an affidavit in which he maintained, inter alia, that he turned the marina’s sprinkler system off for the winter several weeks before the accident, demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) by establishing, inter alia, that it did not create the icy condition upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell (cf. Weising v Fairfield Props., 6 AD3d 427, 428 [2004]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence [605]*605raising a triable issue of fact, including the affidavit of a person who had visited the area of the accident four days after the date of the accident. The affiant recounted that, at that time, sprinklers at the marina were operating and, moreover, “thrusting water onto the sidewalks ... at and around the [mjarina.” Certain photographs taken by the affiant corroborated that assertion. This was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created the icy condition on which the plaintiff slipped (cf. Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470, 475 [1969]; Griffin v 19-20 Indus. City Assoc., LLC, 37 AD3d 412, 412-413 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 604, 892 N.Y.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sescila-v-great-south-bay-estates-homeowners-assn-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack