Opinion
2017–03209 Index No. 4749/15
01-24-2018
Luz MORALES, respondent, v. DAVIDSON APARTMENTS, LLC, et al., appellants.
Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Thomas G. Connolly of counsel), for appellants. Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac, Brianna Walsh, and Jillian Rosen ], of counsel), for respondent.
Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Thomas G. Connolly of counsel), for appellants.
Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac, Brianna Walsh, and Jillian Rosen ], of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Francois A. Rivera, J.), dated January 20, 2017. The order denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on ice on a sidewalk abutting the defendants' premises in the Bronx. In her bill of particulars, the plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on a "longstanding condition of ice." The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the storm in progress rule applied. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendants appeal.
The defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the storm in progress rule. The evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish that the ice upon which the plaintiff slipped was the result of an ongoing storm as opposed to an accumulation of ice from prior snowfalls (see McBryant v. Pisa Holding Corp. , 110 A.D.3d 1034, 1035–1036, 973 N.Y.S.2d 757 ; Abramo v. City of Mount Vernon , 103 A.D.3d 760, 761, 959 N.Y.S.2d 725 ). Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BALKIN, J.P., HALL, HINDS–RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.