Berganzo v. Bronx Realty Grp. LLC

• Citation: 179 A.D.3d 574,114 N.Y.S.3d 633 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 23 January 2020
• Docket Number: 10867,Index 23072/15E
• Parties: Cinthia BERGANZO, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BRONX REALTY GROUP LLC, Defendant, Melrose Site D–1 Houses, Inc., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

179 A.D.3d 574

114 N.Y.S.3d 633 (Mem)

Cinthia BERGANZO, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.BRONX REALTY GROUP LLC, Defendant,Melrose Site D–1 Houses, Inc., et al., Defendants–Appellants.

10867

Index 23072/15E

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

ENTERED: JANUARY 23, 2020

Black Marjieh & Sanford, LLP, Elmsford (Brendan Patrick Lanigan of counsel), for appellants.

McHale Law Firm, LLC, New York (Paul A. Burg of counsel), for respondent.

Gische, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered April 5, 2019, which denied defendants Melrose Site D–1 Houses, Inc. and Melrose Site D–1 Realty Associates, L.P.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court correctly found that defendants met their prima facie burden by demonstrating that a storm was in progress the night before plaintiff's accident and that a reasonable time had not elapsed to allow defendants' workers to clear the courtyard before then (see Powell v. MLG Hillside Assoc., 290 A.D.2d 345, 737 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2002] ). Plaintiff raised triable issues of fact through admissible evidence, including eyewitness and expert affidavits, as to whether the area was covered with ice from a prior storm and whether defendants created the icy or slushy conditions through their negligent removal and piling of snow after the prior storm (see Perez v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., 173 A.D.3d 597, 598, 103 N.Y.S.3d 404 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Bagnoli v. 3GR/228 LLC, 147 A.D.3d 504, 504–505, 47 N.Y.S.3d 32 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Guzman v. Broadway 922 Enters., LLC, 130 A.D.3d 431, 432, 12 N.Y.S.3d 92 [1st Dept. 2015] ). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.