From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jakubowski v. Axton Owner LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2017
156 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

5205–5206 Index 154493/14

12-14-2017

Hanna JAKUBOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. AXTON OWNER LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Vanguard Construction & Development, Inc., Defendant.

Ginsberg & Wolf, P.C., New York (Robert M. Ginsberg of counsel), for appellants. Brody & Branch, LLP, New York (Tanya M. Branch of counsel), for respondents.


Ginsberg & Wolf, P.C., New York (Robert M. Ginsberg of counsel), for appellants.

Brody & Branch, LLP, New York (Tanya M. Branch of counsel), for respondents.

Friedman, J.P., Kahn, Gesmer, Kern, Moulton, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered September 15, 2016, dismissing the complaint as against defendants Axton Owner LLC and Starrett Corporation (collectively Starrett defendants), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 30, 2016, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the Starrett defendants for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The Starrett defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment based upon the "storm in progress" defense via the climatological data relied upon by their expert meteorologist (see CPLR 4528 ; Perez v. Canale, 50 A.D.3d 437, 855 N.Y.S.2d 488 [1st Dept. 2008] ). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue as to whether it had stopped snowing long enough for the Starrett defendants' duty to clear the snow to have arisen. Even fully crediting plaintiff Henrik Jakubowski's affidavit, it does not shed light on the snowfall during the relevant period, as Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 16–123(a) gives landowners a four-hour grace period to clear snow and ice, not including the period between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore, the nonparty witness's observation that it was not snowing at 5:00 p.m. is indicative of a temporary lull in the storm and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a duty to clear snow and ice (see e.g. Guntur v. Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 A.D.3d 485, 486, 960 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept. 2013] ).


Summaries of

Jakubowski v. Axton Owner LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2017
156 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Jakubowski v. Axton Owner LLC

Case Details

Full title:Hanna JAKUBOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. AXTON OWNER LLC, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 14, 2017

Citations

156 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 8724
65 N.Y.S.3d 444

Citing Cases

Santana v. Melendez

Contrary to plaintiff's argument, defendants' deposition testimony established that they resided in the…