Vickery v. Estate of Brockman
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- SMITH, TERESA G. v. UNITED REFINING COMPANY OF PENNSYLV (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Smith v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvania (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Smith v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvania (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Rapini v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Santerre v. Golub Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Frazier v. Pioneer Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
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 unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on snow or ice. Supreme Court properly denied the motion and cross motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants Estate of Leah Brockman and executors of the Estate (Estate) failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they owed no duty to plaintiff to maintain the
The Estate and defendants Elmer White and Jackie White, individually, contend that this action is barred by the “storm in progress” doctrine. It is well settled that “[a] landowner is not responsible for a failure to remove snow and ice until a reasonable time has elapsed after cessation of the storm” (Cerra v Perk Dev., 197 AD2d 851; see, Siegel v Molino, 236 AD2d 879). Those defendants, however, failed to establish that there was a storm in progress on the day of plaintiffs accident (cf., Croff v Grand Union Co., 205 AD2d 856). Finally, those defendants failed to submit evidence supporting their contention that there was no hazardous condition and thus that they cannot be held liable for the alleged failure to correct it (see, Marcellus v Littauer Hosp. Assn., 145 AD2d 680, 681). Indeed, they submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff that there was accumulated ice on the ground, and that she had difficulty walking on it because it was slippery. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Parenti, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.