Opinion
6500 Index 304085/15
05-10-2018
Gloria ENCARNACION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellant. The Altman Law Firm, PLLC, Woodmere (Michael T. Altman of counsel), for respondent.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellant.
The Altman Law Firm, PLLC, Woodmere (Michael T. Altman of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Webber, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2017, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on snow or ice on the walkway in front of defendant's building. Defendant submitted, inter alia, climatological records and meteorologists' affidavits showing that there was a winter storm in progress at the time of plaintiff's fall (see Wexler v. Ogden Cap Props., LLC, 154 A.D.3d 640, 64 N.Y.S.3d 9 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Levene v. No. 2 W. 67th St., Inc., 126 A.D.3d 541, 6 N.Y.S.3d 232 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's snow removal efforts created or exacerbated a hazardous condition. Her claim that she fell on "dirty" snow that could have fallen in the time between defendant's snow removal and the accident, and her conclusory assertion that defendant's snow removal was not adequate, do not raise triable issues of fact (see e.g. Filius v. New York City Hous. Auth., 156 A.D.3d 434, 64 N.Y.S.3d 553 [1st Dept. 2017] ).