Kropp v. Corning, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 507665 |
| Citation | 69 A.D.3d 1211,893 N.Y.S.2d 371,2010 NY Slip Op 448 |
| Parties | DONALD KROPP et al., Appellants, v. CORNING, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered March 12, 2009 in Otsego County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries allegedly arising from a slip and fall on ice in a loading bay located at defendant's place of business in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County. On the date of his injury in February 2004, plaintiff Donald Kropp (hereinafter plaintiff) was employed as a truck driver. He arrived at defendant's business shortly before 5:00 A.M., and defendant's employees provided his paperwork and directed him to the loading bay. In the course of attaching the trailer to his tractor, while cranking up the legs of the landing gear, plaintiff slipped on a patch of ice. After slipping, he observed an icy spot on the blacktop surface that he later described as measuring approximately 8 to 10 inches in diameter, with no salt or sand on its surface. Plaintiff further testified that he had not observed snow or ice in the vicinity or in defendant's parking lot, loading bay, or adjacent areas upon his arrival that morning or prior to this incident. He recalled no precipitation that morning or on the prior day, though the temperature was near freezing.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, submitting this testimony, together with meteorological records for the period, revealing that the temperature on the subject date reached a high of 33 degrees and a low of four degrees, with one tenth of an inch of snowfall. The only snowfall recorded in the previous 48 hours had taken place two days earlier with one tenth of an inch reported on that date. Defendant further submitted evidence regarding an existing contract with a third party for snow and ice removal from the premises. This contract required plowing when there was snowfall of two inches or more. In addition, the testimony of defendant's maintenance supervisor revealed that defendant's custodians would supplement these efforts by shoveling or spreading "ice melt" upon request or notice of a particular problem. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs argued that the testimony of defendant's employee revealed that there was no program for routine inspection of the loading docks or other areas. Plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of an expert safety engineer criticizing the lack of such a policy at the subject premises, as such would be a "standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. Cdga Nat'l Bank Trust & Canandaigua Nat'l Corp.
...of [constructive] notice by offering proof of regularly recurring maintenance or inspection of the premises” ( Kropp v. Corning, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 1211, 1212, 893 N.Y.S.2d 371 [emphasis added]; see Webb v. Salvation Army, 83 A.D.3d 1453, 1454, 920 N.Y.S.2d 562), such evidence is not required ......
-
Keating v. Town of Burke
...( Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985]; see Kropp v. Corning, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 1211, 1213, 893 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2010] ). ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted the motion......
-
Fontanelli v. Price Chopper Operating Co. Inc.
...N.Y.S.2d 213 [2010] ). Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, as we must ( see Kropp v. Corning, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 1211, 1212, 893 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2010] ), we find that plaintiffs failed to do so. We reject plaintiffs' contentions that their deposition testimony ra......
-
Grove v. Cornell Univ.
...is viewed at thisprocedural point in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment ( see Kropp v. Corning, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 1211, 1212, 893 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2010] ). Plaintiff was working at a height exceeding 30 feet in a basket affixed to a boom lift. It is undisputed that t......
-
A. Summary Judgment Procedure
...outside a convenience store); Godfrey v. Town of Hurley, 68 A.D.3d 1527, 891 N.Y.S.2d 555 (3d Dep't 2009); Kropp v. Corning, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 1211, 893 N.Y.S.2d 371 (3d Dep't 2010); Carr v. Midtown Rochester Props., LLC, 67 A.D.3d 1469, 888 N.Y.S.2d 452 (4th Dep't 2009).[1211] A.C. Transp., ......
-
A. Summary Judgment Procedure
...outside a convenience store); Godfrey v. Town of Hurley, 68 A.D.3d 1527, 891 N.Y.S.2d 555 (3d Dep't 2009); Kropp v. Corning, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 1211, 893 N.Y.S.2d 371 (3d Dep't 2010); Carr v. Midtown Rochester Props., LLC, 67 A.D.3d 1469, 888 N.Y.S.2d 452 (4th Dep't 2009).[1228] A.C. Transp., ......