From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yen Hsia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 2002
295 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-07946

Submitted May 21, 2002.

June 25, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Eleftherios Moshonas and Rosa Moshonas appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated May 10, 2001, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Arlene Zalayet, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert T. Baer of counsel), for appellants.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the defendants Joseph Caputo and Lucia Caputo is severed.

An owner or lessee is under no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of his or her premises (see Booth v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 357, 358; Lakhan v. Singh, 269 A.D.2d 427). The failure to remove all of the ice and snow is not negligence (see Spicehandler v. City of New York, 303 N.Y. 946; Kennedy v. C C New Main St. Corp., 269 A.D.2d 499), and liability will not result unless it is shown that the property owner made the sidewalk more hazardous in attempting to remove the ice and snow (see Lakhan v. Singh, supra; Velez v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 570).

Here, the appellants presented evidence which established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise any issues of fact as to whether the defendants caused or created the injury-causing ice patch "through incomplete snow removal efforts, apart from unsubstantiated hypotheses and suppositions by the plaintiffs' attorney, which are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment" (Penny v. Pembrook Mgt., 280 A.D.2d 590, 591; see Plona v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 215, 216).

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Yen Hsia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 2002
295 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Yen Hsia v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH YEN HSIA, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et…

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

Date published: Jun 25, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 887

Citing Cases

Cruz v. Nassau

In the instant case, the applicable ordinance, Village of Freeport Code § 180-35, did not specifically impose…

Anita John v. City of New York

nt to section 7-210 (b) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York for negligent failure to remove…