From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldstein v. Moskowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 2000
271 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 1, 2000.

April 13, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated June 18, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Galvano Xanthakis, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Adam W. Scheinbach of counsel), for appellants.

Roura Melamed, New York, N.Y. (Alexander J. Wulwick of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An owner is under no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon a sidewalk in front of his premises (see, Delgado v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 540 ; Stewart v. Haleviym, 186 A.D.2d 731 ). A failure to remove all of the snow is not negligence (see, Spicehandler v. City of New York, 303 N.Y. 946 ; Delgado v. City of New York, supra). However, liability will result if it is shown that a defendant made the sidewalk more hazardous (see, Lakhan v. Singh, 269 A.D.2d 427 [2d Dept, Feb. 14, 2000]; Reidy v. EZE Equip. Co., 234 A.D.2d 593 ; Oley v. Village of Massapequa Park, 198 A.D.2d 272 ).

The defendants failed to establish prima facie that they were not negligent in the happening of the accident. The defendants admitted that someone shoveled the sidewalk in front of their premises and put salt on the sidewalk the day before the incident. This admission provides evidence from which a jury could conclude that the defendants, having undertaken to shovel the sidewalk, did so in a manner which left it more hazardous than it would have been had it not been shoveled at all.

Since the defendants failed to meet their burden, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiff's papers in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 ; Fabbricatore v. Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist., 259 A.D.2d 659).


Summaries of

Goldstein v. Moskowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 2000
271 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Goldstein v. Moskowitz

Case Details

Full title:IRVING GOLDSTEIN, respondent, v. ALTER MOSKOWITZ, et al., appellants

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

Date published: Apr 13, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 913

Citing Cases

Hennessey v. 91 American Grocery

A failure to remove all of the snow is not negligence and liability will not result unless it is shown that…

Hennessey v. 91 Am. Grocery

A failure to remove all of the snow is not negligence and liability will not result unless it is shown that…