From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chapman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 2000
268 A.D.2d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued December 3, 1999

January 24, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated September 18, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a note of issue and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and Susan Choi-Hausman of counsel), for appellant.

Mark A. Longo, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Guy Vaccarino of counsel), for respondents.

THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

A municipality is not liable in negligence for injuries sustained by a pedestrian who slips and falls on an icy and snow-covered sidewalk unless a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, subsequent to the cessation of the storm, for taking protective measures (see, Robles v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 305 ; Urena v. New York City Tr. Auth., 248 A.D.2d 377 ; Newsome v. Cservak, 130 A.D.2d 637 ; Valentine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 381, 384, affd 57 N.Y.2d 932 ).

After the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, no proof was offered by the injured plaintiff to support the allegation that his fall was caused by an accumulation of "old" snow and ice from a storm which occurred three to four days before the date of his fall, as opposed to the precipitation from the storm in progress at the time of his accident. The injured plaintiff's assertion that the hazardous condition was a result of "old" snow and ice is nothing more than mere conjecture and speculation (see, Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972 ; Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 1020 ; Urena v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Bertman v. Board of Mgrs. of Omni Ct. Condominium I, 233 A.D.2d 283 ; Pohl v. Sternberg, 259 A.D.2d 742 ; Baum v. Knoll Farm, 259 A.D.2d 456 ; Grillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 648 ). Accordingly, summary judgment is granted to the City.

SULLIVAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chapman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 2000
268 A.D.2d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Chapman v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD CHAPMAN, et al., respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, appellant

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

Date published: Jan 24, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 355

Citing Cases

Zoutman v. Goshen Central School District

The plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the icy condition was present prior to…

Yannotti v. Four Brothers Homes

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The defendants Four Brothers Homes…