Stoller v. Riverbay Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stoller v. Riverbay Corp.

222 A.D.2d 343, 635 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13303

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 343 (Stoller v. Riverbay Corp.) 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

Stoller v. Riverbay Corp., 222 A.D.2d 343, 635 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered March 13, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon commencement of snow removal operations, defendant was required to exercise reasonable care to avoid creating or increasing any hazards (see, Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402, 403). The record indicates that the snow removal crew cleared the circular driveway near the shopping center, but not the adjacent area covering the parking spaces and the sidewalk. Although plaintiff apparently slipped and fell on a spot that defendant had not attempted to clear, a jury question exists (Ferguson v City of New York, 201 AD2d 422, 424) as to whether defendant’s snow removal operations, in effect, unreasonably "invited” plaintiff into an only partially cleared parking area. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered March 13, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon commencement of snow removal operations, defendant was required to exercise reasonable care to avoid creating or increasing any hazards (see, Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402, 403). The record indicates that the snow removal crew cleared the circular driveway near the shopping center, but not the adjacent area covering the parking spaces and the sidewalk. Although plaintiff apparently slipped and fell on a spot that defendant had not attempted to clear, a jury question exists (Ferguson v City of New York, 201 AD2d 422, 424) as to whether defendant’s snow removal operations, in effect, unreasonably "invited” plaintiff into an only partially cleared parking area. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 343, 635 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoller-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack