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 · Decided July 20, 2000

274 A.D.2d 335; 712 N.Y.S.2d 93; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8036

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Edwards v. Rockland Hosp. Guild Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
De Los Santos v. 4915 Broadway Realty LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Blair v. Richards (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Joseph v. Pitkin Carpet, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Vargas v. Central Parking System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Suh v. Fleet Bank, N.A. (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)
Lynch v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Peasah v. C&S Value Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered May 6, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a patch of ice on a pathway in defendant’s housing development, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment in defendant’s favor is precluded by an issue of fact as to whether the ice on which plaintiff allegedly slipped was formed as a result of the piles of snow on either side of the pathway, created by defendant’s groundskeepers in removing almost two feet of snow that had fallen within a week of the accident, melting and refreezing (see, Grizzaffi v Paparodero Holding Corp., 261 AB2d 437; see also, Zahn v City of New York, 299 NY 581; Jiuz v City of New York, 244 AD2d 298). It is for a jury to decide whether defendant’s snow removal methods “created a more hazardous condition than would have obtained had the snow been left untouched” (Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402, 403). Concur — Eosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.