Wesolowski v. Wesolowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wesolowski v. Wesolowski

306 A.D.2d 402, 760 N.Y.S.2d 886

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

DecidedJune 16, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 402 (Wesolowski v. Wesolowski) 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

Wesolowski v. Wesolowski, 306 A.D.2d 402, 760 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated May 17, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant property owner’s duty of care did not require him to shovel or otherwise remedy the snow and ice condition in a grassy area adjacent to the driveway where the plaintiff slipped and fell (see Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474 [1998]; Garcia v New York City Hous. Auth., 234 AD2d 102 [1996]; Palmer v Prescott, 208 AD2d 1065 [1994]; Bacon v Mussaw, 167 AD2d 741 [1990]). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated May 17, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant property owner’s duty of care did not require him to shovel or otherwise remedy the snow and ice condition in a grassy area adjacent to the driveway where the plaintiff slipped and fell (see Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474 [1998]; Garcia v New York City Hous. Auth., 234 AD2d 102 [1996]; Palmer v Prescott, 208 AD2d 1065 [1994]; Bacon v Mussaw, 167 AD2d 741 [1990]). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 402, 760 N.Y.S.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wesolowski-v-wesolowski-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack