Pecoraro v. Tribuzio, 2016–08377
| Citation | 155 A.D.3d 1057,64 N.Y.S.3d 588 (Mem) |
| Decision Date | 29 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 3792/15,2016–08377 |
| Parties | Toni Marie PECORARO, appellant, v. Domenico TRIBUZIO, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
155 A.D.3d 1057
64 N.Y.S.3d 588 (Mem)
Toni Marie PECORARO, appellant,
v.
Domenico TRIBUZIO, et al., respondents.
2016–08377
Index No. 3792/15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued October 10, 2017
November 29, 2017
Krentsel & Guzman (Michael H. Zhu, Esq., P.C., New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Penino & Moynihan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Henry L. Liao of counsel), for respondents.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily–Schiffman, J.), dated June 21, 2016, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Lucia Tribuzio.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with
costs, and that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Lucia Tribuzio is denied.
The plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on ice that was located on the exterior steps of premises in Brooklyn owned or controlled by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.
The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Lucia Tribuzio based on the storm in progress rule. "Under the ‘storm in progress rule,’ a landowner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Martinez, 2014–11443
...to proceed to trial. Such remarks are informative rather than coercive (see People v. Foster, 99 A.D.3d 812, 812–813, 951 N.Y.S.2d 890 ; 64 N.Y.S.3d 588 People v. Strong, 80 A.D.3d 717, 718, 914 N.Y.S.2d 679 ; People v. Bravo, 72 A.D.3d 697, 698, 899 N.Y.S.2d 280 ).By pleading guilty, the d......
-
Tinter v. Bd. of Trs. of the Pound Ridge Library Dist.
...1, 144 N.E.2d 3 ). A person holding a position covered by Civil Service Law § 75 may not be removed or otherwise subjected to any 155 A.D.3d 1057disciplinary penalty except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing (see Civil Service Law § 75[1] ). In an employee disciplinary cas......
-
Tinter v. Bd. of Trs. of the Pound Ridge Library Dist.
...of certain work logs documenting one employee's off-site work (see Matter of Tinter v. Board of Trustees of the Pound Ridge Lib. Dist., 155 A.D.3d at 1057, 66 N.Y.S.3d 526 ). This court also 166 N.Y.S.3d 243 determined that so much of the determination as found the petitioner guilty of the ......
-
Hagen v. Schuyler Meadows Dev.
...was in conflict and, thus, could not establish, prima facie, that the storm in progress rule applied (see Pecoraro v Tribuzio, 155 A.D.3d 1057, 1058 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Daniel v East Williston Union Free School District, 180 A.D.3d 750 [2d Dept 2020]), the defendants failed to meet the......