Jiuz v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kalar v. Zaia (District Court, N.D. New York 1999)
- Angen v. De Jesus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Renjifo v. Bay Shore Estadio Restaurant, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Williams v. Patrick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Puello v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Almanzar v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Prenderville v. International Service Systems, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Tucciarone v. Windsor Owners Core (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Lopez v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Tribuzio v. McCarthy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Gaudino v. 511 West 232nd Street Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Chin v. Borden House Condominium (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Figueroa v. Lazarus Burman Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Sherwood v. Transworld Equities, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Rebell v. Emigrant Savings Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Rebell v. Emigrant Savings Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Salazar v. KFC National Management Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Genen v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Roberts v. Conti Cleaners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Rodgers v. Earl (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Figueroa v. Tso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Crichton v. Pitney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered July 2, 1996, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a slip and fall on snow or ice, denied defendants building owner’s and store’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against each, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion of defendant building owner, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant building owner dismissing the complaint as against it.
An owner or lessee of property owes no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of its premises, but, if it undertakes to do so, it can be held liable in negligence where its acts create or increase the hazards inherent in ice and snow on the sidewalks (see, Keane v City of New York, 208 AD2d 457; Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402). Here, plaintiffs assertion that he had observed that a path had been cleared in the area of the sidewalk where he fell, the lease provision requiring the store to remove snow and ice from the abutting sidewalk, the building superintendent’s assertion that it was regular practice of store employees to clear snow when there was a storm, and the store owner’s admission that he did not know whether his employees had shovelled snow during this storm were sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the store’s employees had attempted snow removal and thereby created or increased the hazard that caused plaintiffs injuries (see, Glick v City of New York, supra cf., Hendersen v Hickory Pit Rest., 221 AD2d 161, 162). However, because plaintiff made no showing to contradict the building owner’s denial of any connection with snow removal, summary judgment should have been granted in this
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.