From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edwards v. DeMatteis Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 9, 2003
306 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09236

Submitted May 21, 2003.

June 9, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated September 19, 2002, as granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Stephan Persoff, Carle Place, N.Y., for appellants.

Curtis, Vasile, Devine, Merrick, N.Y. (Marianne Arcieri of counsel), for respondents.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice outside of a building owned, operated, and maintained by the defendants. A party in control of real property may be held liable for a snow and ice condition on its premises only if the property owner or possessor had actual or constructive notice of the condition, and had a reasonably sufficient time from the cessation of the precipitation to remedy it (see Brunson v. National Amusements, 292 A.D.2d 413; Gam v. Pomona Professional Condominium, 291 A.D.2d 372; DeVivo v. Sparago, 287 A.D.2d 535; Pepito v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 619). A general awareness that ice accumulates is not sufficient to constitute notice of a particular condition (see Smith v. Smith, 289 A.D.2d 919).

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It is undisputed that the defendants did not have actual notice of the ice condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff's fall. In addition, contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the record does not support a finding that the defendants had constructive notice of the alleged condition. In any event, the record also establishes that regardless of the notice issue, the defendants did not have sufficient time from the cessation of the precipitation to remedy it (see Whitt v. St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 258 A.D.2d 648).

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, ADAMS and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Edwards v. DeMatteis Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 9, 2003
306 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Edwards v. DeMatteis Corporation

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH EDWARDS, ET AL., appellants, v. DeMATTEIS CORPORATION, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 9, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
760 N.Y.S.2d 658

Citing Cases

Hoover v. Machines Corp.

The condition of the PIV area was not visible and apparent as it was located at the bottom of a small…

DE LA CRUZ v. 201 W. 109TH ST. ASSOC. LLC

Because this argument in support of summary judgment was raised for the first time in defendants' reply…