Sweeney v. Hoey, 2020–05599
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 211 A.D.3d 1071,181 N.Y.S.3d 599 |
| Docket Number | 2020–05599,Index No. 613325/18 |
| Parties | Francis SWEENEY, respondent, v. Robert HOEY, et al., appellants. |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2022 |
211 A.D.3d 1071
181 N.Y.S.3d 599
Francis SWEENEY, respondent,
v.
Robert HOEY, et al., appellants.
2020–05599
Index No. 613325/18
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—October 25, 2022
December 28, 2022
Hollander Legal Group, P.C., Melville, NY (Allan S. Hollander and Jennifer Ettenger of counsel), for appellants.
Gustman Law, P.C. (The Zweig Law Firm, P.C., Woodmere, NY [Jonah S. Zweig ], of counsel), for respondent.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), dated June 26, 2020. The order denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint is granted.
On January 7, 2018, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a snowy and icy condition located in the driveway of a multifamily dwelling in Nassau County in which he leased an apartment. The plaintiff's lease with the defendants, the owners of the subject property, provided that the plaintiff was responsible for snow removal from the driveway. At his deposition, the plaintiff acknowledged that he was responsible for snow and ice removal from a portion of the driveway, which included the area where he allegedly fell. The plaintiff also testified that each time it snowed he shoveled that area of the driveway where the alleged accident occurred.
In October 2018, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained in the fall. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. In an order dated June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendants appeal.
" ‘An...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. H.E.H.
...by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct" (Achee v Merrick Vil., Inc., 208 A.D.3d at 543-544; see Sweeney v Hoey, 211 A.D.3d 1071, 1071-1072; Alnashmi v Certified Analytical Group, Inc., 89 A.D.3d 10, 18). Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it was an out-of-......
-
Devoe v. Nostrand II Meat Corp.
...owner or tenant in possession of real property owes a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition (see Sweeney v Hoey, 211 A.D.3d 1071, 1071-1072; Muller v City of New York, 185 A.D.3d 834, 835). Such a defendant moving for summary judgment in a premises liability case can ......
-
Tedesco v. Elio
...encroached on the plaintiffs’ property. The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for trespass and for injunctive 181 N.Y.S.3d 599 relief. The defendant stipulated to removing certain encroachments. However, with respect to an L-shaped retaining wall that encroached 28 inches ......
-
Voltaire v. City of New York
...safe condition (see Henry v Hamilton Equities, Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 136, 142; Gronski v County of Monroe, 18 N.Y.3d 374, 379; Sweeney v Hoey, 211 A.D.3d 1071, 1071-1072). That duty is premised on the exercise of control over the property, "as the person in possession and control of property is b......