Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Bugiada v. Iko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 3, 2000

274 A.D.2d 368; 710 N.Y.S.2d 117; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7538

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Dorestant v. Snow, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
O'Keefe v. Arbon Equipment Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2005)
Raynor-Brown v. Garden City Plaza Assoc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Forbes v. Equity One Northeast Portfolio, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Cayetano v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Morris v. Home Depot USA (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Diaz v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Rudloff v. Woodland Pond Condominium Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Rudloff v. Woodland Pond Condominium Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Farrell v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Abramowitz v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Weeman v. Rouse Si Shopping Center, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Kaehler-Hendrix v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Schultz v. Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Wheaton v. East End Commons Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Castro v. Maple Run Condominium Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Romeo v. Ronald McDonald House (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Bracco v. Puntillo Ltd. Partnership (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Cochrane v. Warwick Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Grau v. Taxter Park Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Tuzzo v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P. C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Mangieri v. Palotta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated April 5, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

Where a snow removal contract is not a comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance obligation intended to displace *369an employer’s duty as a landowner to safely maintain the property, as a general rule the contractor owes no duty of reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to an injured plaintiff (see, Pavlovich v Wade Assocs., 274 AD2d 382 [decided herewith]; Riekers v Gold Coast Plaza, 255 AD2d 373; Girardi v Bank of N. Y. Co., 249 AD2d 443; Boskey v Gazza Props., 248 AD2d 344; Mir anti v Brightwaters Racquet & Spa, 246 AD2d 518; Keshavarz v Murphy, 242 AD2d 680). An exception to this general rule exists when the plaintiff detrimentally relies upon the contractor’s continued performance of his contractual obligations or where the contractor’s actions “ ‘advanced to such a point as to have launched a force or instrument of harm’ ” (Bourk v National Cleaning, 174 AD2d 827, 828, quoting Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., 247 NY 160, 168; see also, Riekers v Gold Coast Plaza, supra; Miranti v Brightwaters Racquet & Spa, supra; Keshavarz v Murphy, supra).

Here, the contract between the defendant and the plaintiffs employer for snow removal was not sufficiently comprehensive or exclusive so as to displace the plaintiffs employer’s duty as the landowner to maintain its property in a safe condition. Therefore, the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff and the assertions that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition, or created or exacerbated the condition, do not provide a basis for liability (see, Bourk v National Cleaning, supra). Additionally, there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff detrimentally relied upon the defendant’s continued performance of its contractual obligations or that the defendant launched a force or instrument of harm. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff had any knowledge of the contract between his employer and the defendant for snow removal services. Further, the record indicates that the plaintiff did not rely upon any past performance by the defendant, but rather he relied upon his own observations of the conditions as they existed on the night of his accident. Accordingly, the plaintiff has no valid claim of detrimental reliance and the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion dismissing the complaint in its entirety and denied the plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint. Bracken, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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