From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Suntken v. 226 West 75th St. Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 11, 1999
258 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 11, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).


An owner of property is under no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of its premises. To incur liability, the owner's snow removal attempt must have made the sidewalk more dangerous (Jimenez v. Cummings, 226 A.D.2d 112). Even during an ongoing storm, while ordinarily there would be no duty to remove snow, if one takes steps to remove snow and ice, liability may result if those efforts create a hazardous condition or exacerbate a natural hazard created by the storm (Marrone v. Verona, 237 A.D.2d 805).

Upon this motion for summary judgment, defendant 226 West 75th St. Inc. clearly demonstrated that while it was the owner of the premises abutting the sidewalk, it was an out-of-possession landlord. The lease agreement between tenant Citarella and landlord 226 placed the responsibility for removing snow upon Citarella and there was no evidence showing that 226 exercised any semblance of control over the premises. In addition, 226 submitted an affidavit from its managing agent which showed that none of its employees had undertaken to clean the sidewalk. In fact, defendant Citarella's employee unequivocally stated that when it snowed, managers of the store would shovel a path in front of the store. Since plaintiffs' submissions failed to demonstrate that 226 had notice of the dangerous condition or had consented to be responsible for maintenance or repair, summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to it was proper (Manning v. New York Tel. Co., 157 A.D.2d 264).

However, there were issues raised as to what effect the snow removal by Citarella had on the condition of the sidewalk. Thus, there was evidence that plaintiff fell while walking in a two to three foot snow-covered path in front of Citarella's store. There was testimony by Citarella's employee that when it snowed it was routine practice for managers of Citarella to shovel a path for the benefit of their customers. In addition, on either side of the path there were accumulations of old snow of up to three inches. Plaintiff stated that the snow was clearly not new but old snow from another storm and that the accumulations were not pristine. In light of this, there are triable issues as to whether the snow removal measures undertaken by Citarella created or increased the dangerous conditions.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Suntken v. 226 West 75th St. Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 11, 1999
258 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Suntken v. 226 West 75th St. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LARRY SUNTKEN et al., Appellants, v. 226 WEST 75TH ST. INC. et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 11, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 217

Citing Cases

Washington v. Milford Mgmt. Corp.

Furthermore, as HIP lacked actual and constructive notice of the condition, it cannot be held liable for…

Vander Veer v. Henderson

She also acknowledged that the landlords, at her request, had repaved the sidewalk in front of her store to…