Herbert v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 11 March 1993 |
| Citation | 595 N.Y.S.2d 129,191 A.D.2d 887 |
| Parties | Lorajean HERBERT, Respondent, v. Irwin RODRIGUEZ et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gerald G. Cowen (Stephen J. Hubel, of counsel), Elmsford, for appellants.
Gerard T. Grogan, P.C. (Claudia M. Abt, of counsel), Goshen, for respondent.
Before YESAWICH, J.P., and CREW, MAHONEY and HARVEY, JJ.
YESAWICH, Justice Presiding.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered March 5, 1992 in Ulster County, which denied certain defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.
Plaintiff claims to have slipped and fallen on a patch of ice, imperceptible because of a light coating of snow, located on the sidewalk adjacent to property owned and maintained by defendants Irwin Rodriguez, Sandra Rodriguez and Billy Rodriguez (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants). In her personal injury action, plaintiff charges that defendants and others were negligent. After issue was joined and some discovery had, defendants unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.
Opposing the motion, plaintiff submitted her own affidavit and that of an engineer, who averred that the ice patch on which plaintiff assertedly fell was caused by water diverted from defendants' property. The expert made a visual inspection of the accident scene, and also examined photographs of the site which were taken several days after the occurrence. Based on these observations, he opined that the presence of a downspout on defendants' dwelling, coupled with the inabsorbent nature of the soil at the base thereof, caused the ice to accumulate on the sidewalk. This evidence, which is uncontroverted, could lead a trier of fact to reasonably conclude that the ice patch was the result of defendants' negligence in permitting the downspout to drain as it did (see, Taylor v. General Battery Corp., 183 A.D.2d 990, 991, 583 N.Y.S.2d 325; Parks v. Hutchins, 162 A.D.2d 666, 669, 557 N.Y.S.2d 389, affd. 78 N.Y.2d 1049, 576 N.Y.S.2d 84, 581 N.E.2d 1339). Moreover, while defendants' counsel argues that the presence of the downspout on the house several days after the accident does not mean that it was there at the time plaintiff fell, defendants failed to offer any evidence substantiating counsel's argument (cf., Dabney v. Ayre, 87 A.D.2d 957, 451 N.Y.S.2d 218). Accordingly, defendants' summary judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaufman v. Silver
...Pensabene v. Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream, supra; see, e.g., Forelli v. Rugino, 139 A.D.2d 489, 526 N.Y.S.2d 847; Herbert v. Rodriguez, 191 A.D.2d 887, 595 N.Y.S.2d 129; Brady v. Maloney, 161 A.D.2d 879, 555 N.Y.S.2d 925), where the defendants, as in this case, have demonstrated that th......
-
Pensabene v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream
...to this rule arises where the owner of the abutting property causes or contributes to the condition (see, e.g., Herbert v. Rodriguez, 191 A.D.2d 887, 595 N.Y.S.2d 129; Brady v. Maloney, 161 A.D.2d 879, 555 N.Y.S.2d 925; Forelli v. Rugino, 139 A.D.2d 489, 526 N.Y.S.2d 847), the Ferros establ......
-
Vought v. Hemminger
...rule exists where the owner of the abutting property created or contributed to the dangerous condition (see e.g., Herbert v. Rodriguez, 191 A.D.2d 887, 595 N.Y.S.2d 129). However, that exception is inapplicable here because there is no evidence or allegation that Pier 92 created or contribu......
-
Hennessy v. Palmer Video
...created or contributed to the dangerous condition (see, Vought v. Hemminger, 220 A.D.2d 580, 632 N.Y.S.2d 606; Herbert v. Rodriguez, 191 A.D.2d 887, 595 N.Y.S.2d 129). Here, there was no evidence that Palmer Video designed, constructed, owned, or controlled the sloped driveway where the pla......