From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herbert v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 11, 1993
191 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 11, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ulster County (Torraca, J.).


Plaintiff claims to have slipped and fallen on a patch of ice, imperceptible because of a light coating of snow, located on the sidewalk adjacent to property owned and maintained by defendants Irwin Rodriguez, Sandra Rodriguez and Billy Rodriguez (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants). In her personal injury action, plaintiff charges that defendants and others were negligent. After issue was joined and some discovery had, defendants unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

Opposing the motion, plaintiff submitted her own affidavit and that of an engineer, who averred that the ice patch on which plaintiff assertedly fell was caused by water diverted from defendants' property. The expert made a visual inspection of the accident scene, and also examined photographs of the site which were taken several days after the occurrence. Based on these observations, he opined that the presence of a downspout on defendants' dwelling, coupled with the inabsorbent nature of the soil at the base thereof, caused the ice to accumulate on the sidewalk. This evidence, which is uncontroverted, could lead a trier of fact to reasonably conclude that the ice patch was the result of defendants' negligence in permitting the downspout to drain as it did (see, Taylor v. General Battery Corp., 183 A.D.2d 990, 991; Parks v. Hutchins, 162 A.D.2d 666, 669, affd 78 N.Y.2d 1049). Moreover, while defendants' counsel argues that the presence of the downspout on the house several days after the accident does not mean that it was there at the time plaintiff fell, defendants failed to offer any evidence substantiating counsel's argument (cf., Dabney v. Ayre, 87 A.D.2d 957). Accordingly, defendants' summary judgment motion was properly denied.

Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Herbert v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 11, 1993
191 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Herbert v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:LORAJEAN HERBERT, Respondent, v. IRWIN RODRIGUEZ et al., Appellants, et…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
595 N.Y.S.2d 129

Citing Cases

Vought v. Hemminger, Pier 92 Restaurant, Inc.

We now reverse and grant the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims…

Portelli v. Garcia

Absent a duty of care to the person injured, a party cannot be held liable in negligence ( see Palsgraf v.…