Vulej v. Meilman

222 A.D.3d 606, 202 N.Y.S.3d 99, 2023 NY Slip Op 06829
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 28, 2023
DocketIndex No. 156096/17 Appeal No. 1321 Case No. 2023-01582
StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.3d 606 (Vulej v. Meilman) 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
Vulej v. Meilman, 222 A.D.3d 606, 202 N.Y.S.3d 99, 2023 NY Slip Op 06829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Vulej v Meilman (2023 NY Slip Op 06829)
Vulej v Meilman
2023 NY Slip Op 06829
Decided on December 28, 2023
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: December 28, 2023
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Webber, Friedman, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.

Index No. 156096/17 Appeal No. 1321 Case No. 2023-01582

[*1]Jason Vulej, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Richard Meilman et al., Defendants-Appellants.


Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Jessica L. Smith of counsel), for appellants.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William F. Perry, J.), entered October 7, 2022, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured after he slipped and fell on ice on defendants' driveway. As the motion court found, since defendants failed to indicate when the driveway had last been inspected or cleaned of ice, they failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Singh v Citibank, N.A., 136 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2016]). Defendants also failed to eliminate issues of fact as to whether the ice on the driveway had been there long enough for them to discover and remedy the situation (see e.g Thomas v New York City Hous. Auth., 165 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2018]; Mike v 91 Payson Owners Corp., 114 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2014]; Bojovic v Lydig Bejing Kitchen, Inc., 91 AD3d 517, 517 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: December 28, 2023



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

Related

Bojovic v. Lydig Bejing Kitchen, Inc.
91 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Mike v. 91 Payson Owners Corp.
114 A.D.3d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.3d 606, 202 N.Y.S.3d 99, 2023 NY Slip Op 06829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vulej-v-meilman-nyappdiv-2023.