From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vickery v. Estate of Brockman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 27, 2000.

Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Parenti, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: PINE, J. P., HAYES, WISNER AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on snow or ice. Supreme Court properly denied the motion and cross motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants Estate of Leah Brockman and executors of the Estate (Estate) failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they owed no duty to plaintiff to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition ( see generally, Di Ponzio v. Riordan, 89 N.Y.2d 578, 582-583; Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241). The contention of defendant Gerald Brockman, individually, that he did not owe any duty to plaintiff, either by contract or by voluntarily snowplowing and shoveling, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see, Fisher v. Society of New York Hosp., 271 A.D.2d 26 2, 263; ICS/Executone Telecom v. Performance Parts Warehouse, 171 A.D.2d 1066).

The Estate and defendants Elmer White and Jackie White, individually, contend that this action is barred by the "storm in progress" doctrine. It is well settled that "[a] landowner is not responsible for a failure to remove snow and ice until a reasonable time has elapsed after cessation of the storm " ( Cerra v. Perk Dev., 197 A.D.2d 851; see, Siegel v. Molino, 236 A.D.2d 879). Those defendants, however, failed to establish that there was a storm in progress on the day of plaintiff's accident ( cf., Croff v. Grand Union Co., 205 A.D.2d 856). Finally, those defendants failed to submit evidence supporting their contention that there was no hazardous condition and thus that they cannot be held liable for the alleged failure to correct it ( see, Marcellus v. Littauer Hosp. Assn. , 145 A.D.2d 680, 681). Indeed, they submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff that there was accumulated ice on the ground, and that she had difficulty walking on it because it was slippery.


Summaries of

Vickery v. Estate of Brockman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Vickery v. Estate of Brockman

Case Details

Full title:SHARON A. VICKERY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE ESTATE OF LEAH BROCKMAN…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 774

Citing Cases

Smith v. United Ref. Co. of Pa.

Calix v. New York City Tr. Auth., 14 A.D.3d 583, 584, 789 N.Y.S.2d 219 ). Further, the statements of…

Santerre v. Golub Corp.

Indeed, the record establishes that, within minutes before plaintiff's fall, Golub's employee had cleared ice…