Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Nobles v. Procut Lawns Landscaping & Contracting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 24, 2004

7 A.D.3d 768; 776 N.Y.S.2d 878

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Kaehler-Hendrix v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Hutchinson v. Medical Data Resources, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Cohen v. Ho (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Lejbik v. Allstate Indemnity Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Billotti v. Above Average Landscaping Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Maldonado v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Stever v. Stever (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Bothe v. Ross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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

*769In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated April 11, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The defendant did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its snow removal contract with the plaintiffs employer (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]). The defendant’s limited contractual undertaking was not a comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance obligation intended to displace the employer’s duty as a landowner to safely maintain the property (see Eidlisz v Village of Kiryas Joel, 302 AD2d 558 [2003]). In addition, there is no evidence that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the defendant’s performance or that the defendant’s actions had advanced to such a point as to have launched a force or instrument of harm (see Pavlovich v Wade Assoc., 274 AD2d 382 [2000]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and has not been considered (see Eidlisz v Village of Kiryas Joel, supra; Mann v All Waste Sys., 293 AD2d 656 [2002]; Matter of DelGaudio v Aetna Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 641 [1999]; Matter of Matarrese v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 247 AD2d 475, 476 [1998]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Crane, JJ, concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.