Zapata v. Finkelstein

Full title: EMMA ZAPATA, Respondent, v. REUVEN FINKELSTEIN et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Mar 16, 1999

259 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

687 N.Y.S.2d 34

Opinion

March 16, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lottie Wilkins, J.).

The denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment was proper since the present record does not permit a determination, as a matter of law, that there was no interval between the snowfall and consequent accumulation upon which plaintiff claims to have injured herself ( see, Croff v. Grand Union Co., 205 A.D.2d 856), or that, if there was an interval, it was insufficient to permit defendant property owners to discover and remedy the hazard ( see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.