Cardinale v. Watervliet Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 06 February 2003 |
| Parties | PATRICIA CARDINALE et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>WATERVLIET HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Crew III, J.
Plaintiff Patricia Cardinale and her spouse, derivatively, commenced this action seeking to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on ice on a walkway of an apartment complex owned by defendant. Following joinder of issue and discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint contending that it neither created the allegedly hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion and this appeal ensued.
We reverse. Plaintiffs bore the burden of demonstrating that defendant either created the icy condition allegedly existing on the walkway in question or had actual or constructive notice thereof (see Lewis v Bama Hotel Corp., 297 AD2d 422, 423). This they failed to do. The record demonstrates that on the day of the accident, Cardinale drove to defendant's apartment complex to visit her mother, whereupon she observed "scanty * * * patches" of ice and snow, particularly along the edge of the walkway. Cardinale entered her mother's apartment without incident, and both Cardinale and her mother successfully negotiated the walkway when they exited and then returned to the apartment later that day. It was not until Cardinale's fourth trip across the walkway that she fell and observed what she described as a "fine slippery * * * very thin layer of * * * black ice."
In our view, the foregoing proof establishes nothing more than defendant failed to remove all of the snow and ice from the subject walkway, an omission that this Court previously has held does not constitute negligence (see Gentile v Rotterdam Sq., 226 AD2d 973, 974). There is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's snow removal efforts created or exacerbated a hazardous condition, and plaintiffs' suggestion that the ice may have been the product of runoff from a nearby roof is based upon pure speculation (see Gam v Pomona Professional Condominium, 291 AD2d 372). As to the issue of notice, defendant's maintenance supervisor averred that he personally inspected the walkway on the day of the accident and observed no accumulation of snow or ice. Thus, plaintiffs' contention that defendant had actual notice of the offending condition is unavailing. With regard to the issue of constructive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.
...that the failure to remove all snow and ice from a surface does not constitute negligence ( see Cardinale v. Watervliet Hous. Auth., 302 A.D.2d 666, 666–667, 754 N.Y.S.2d 728;Gentile v. Rotterdam Sq., 226 A.D.2d 973, 974, 640 N.Y.S.2d 696), those cases involve situations where the plaintiff......
-
Marra v. Zaichenko
...[2008] ; see Meyers v. Big Six Towers, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 877, 878, 925 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2d Dept. 2011] ; Cardinale v. Watervliet Hous. Auth., 302 A.D.2d 666, 667, 754 N.Y.S.2d 728 [3d Dept. 2003] ; Convertini v. Stewart's Ice Cream Co. Inc., 295 A.D.2d 782, 784, 743 N.Y.S.2d 637 [3d Dept. 2002] ......
-
Rodriguez v. Binghamton Hous. Auth.
...or is present is insufficient to provide constructive notice of the injury-producing condition” ( Cardinale v. Watervliet Hous. Auth., 302 A.D.2d 666, 667, 754 N.Y.S.2d 728 [2003] ) and, further, that plaintiff indeed will be required to establish at trial that defendant had notice of the i......
-
Glover v. Botsford
...quotation marks omitted]; see Wohlars v. Town of Islip, 71 A.D.3d 1007, 1009, 898 N.Y.S.2d 59;Cardinale v. Watervliet Hous. Auth., 302 A.D.2d 666, 666–667, 754 N.Y.S.2d 728), and that the failure to salt or sand a sidewalk does not constitute an affirmative act that would constitute an exac......