Nadel v. Cucinella
| Decision Date | 21 November 2002 |
| Citation | 299 A.D.2d 250,750 N.Y.S.2d 588 |
| Parties | CARYN NADEL, as Administratrix of the Estate of JACOB GLICKMAN, Also Known as JACK GLICKMAN, Deceased, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>GIOVANNA CUCINELLA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
On the morning of February 1, 1994, plaintiff's decedent fell on a city-owned sidewalk as he approached his parked car. The sidewalk was in front of defendant's house, which was adjacent to decedent's house. The Rossi family lived on decedent's other side. Documentary evidence indicated that 3.3 inches of snow had fallen in New York City on January 26, 1994. Although it had not snowed the day of the accident, snow remained on the ground. Defendant usually did her own snow removal. However, she did not recall if she had done any snow removal on or around February 1, 1994. Decedent, in his deposition, could not recall if there was snow on the ground at the time of his fall, and he could not recall seeing ice as he stepped toward the driver's side of his car, placed his key in the door, and slipped. The record seems to indicate, moreover, that the car had been parked across the street. In any event, Mrs. Rossi, in an unsworn written statement, said that she heard decedent yell, and saw decedent lying on the curb between parked cars, and also observed snow and ice at the curb and between the cars.
This action was commenced in April of 1995, a note of issue was filed in November of 1996, decedent died in December of 1996, and present plaintiff was appointed administrator of decedent's estate in June 1998. Plaintiff's counsel defaulted in 1998, the matter was marked off the trial calendar and a subsequent motion to restore was denied when counsel failed to appear. In July of 2001, a new associate at the firm sought vacatur of the dismissal and restoration of the matter to the calendar. The motion court granted plaintiff's motion to restore and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, finding "issues of credibility."
No evidence offered on the motion demonstrates a basis for defendant's liability. Although we have long recognized the duty of a landowner who undertakes snow removal on a city street to do so carefully, as an exception to the doctrine that such an adjoining land owner has no duty to undertake removal of any snow accumulation (Suntken v 226 W. 75th St., 258 AD2d 314), the facts still must permit an inference that defendant's snow removal efforts caused the plaintiff's injury ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert v. City of Rye
...Realty Corp., 125 A.D.3d 429, 430, 3 N.Y.S.3d 21 ; Phillips v. KAPL, Inc., 20 A.D.3d 741, 742, 799 N.Y.S.2d 297 ; Nadel v. Cucinella, 299 A.D.2d 250, 251–252, 750 N.Y.S.2d 588 ).Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the City's motion for summary judgment dism......
-
Fukunaga v. Broadwall Mgmt. Corp., INDEX NO. 162170/2014
...must do so carefully, so as not to create a dangerous condition or exacerbate a naturally occurring condition. (See Nadel v Cucinella, 299 A.D.2d 250, 251 [1st Dept 2002].) In the absence of such a statute or ordinance, "the facts must still permit an inference that the defendant's snow rem......
-
Lowenstern v. Sherman Square Realty Corp.
...actual or constructive notice thereof (Burniston v Ranric Enterprises Corp., 134 AD3d 973, 974 [2d Dept 2015]; Nadel v. Cucinella, 299 A.D.2d 250, 251 [1st Dept 2002]; Sanders v City of N.Y., 17 A.D.3d 169 [1st Dept 2005] [liability can be imposed only upon evidence that attempts at snow re......
-
Barrett v. Aero Snow Removal Corp.
...(see Lenti v. Initial Cleaning Servs., Inc. , 52 A.D.3d 288, 289, 860 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept. 2008] ; Nadel v. Cucinella , 299 A.D.2d 250, 252, 750 N.Y.S.2d 588 [1st Dept. 2002] ).We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them ...
-
Table of cases
...§ 11:20 NAB Construction Corp. v. The City of New York, 276 A.D.2d 388, 714 N.Y.S.2d 279 (1st Dept. 2000), § 12:10 Nadel v. Cucinella, 299 A.D.2d 250, 750 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1st 2002), § 8:20 Naldi v. Grunberg, 80 A.D.3d 1, 908 N.Y.S.2d 639 (1st Dept. 2010), § 11:20 Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc......
-
Character & habit
...case concerning alleged uncharged crime and drug addiction were prejudicial and warranted new trial for plaintif. Nadel v. Cucinella , 299 A.D.2d 250, 750 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1st 2002). Mere evidence of owner’s general habit with respect to snow removal is insuicient to connect an abutting landow......
-
Character & habit
...case concerning alleged uncharged crime and drug addiction were prejudicial and warranted new trial for plaintif. Nadel v. Cucinella , 299 A.D.2d 250, 750 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1st 2002). Mere evidence of owner’s general habit with respect to snow removal is insuicient to connect an abutting landow......
-
Character & habit
...case concerning alleged uncharged crime and drug addiction were prejudicial and warranted new trial for plaintiff. Nadel v. Cucinella, 299 A.D.2d 250, 750 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1st 2002). Mere evidence of owner’s general habit with respect to snow removal is insufficient to connect an abutting land......