Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Scott v. Bergstol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 12, 2004

11 A.D.3d 525; 782 N.Y.S.2d 793; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Lindquist v. C & C Landscape Contractors, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Salgado v. Ring (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Thepenier v. BGTWO Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Adolf v. Erie County Indus. Dev. Agency (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Lalicata v. 39-15 Skillman Realty Co., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Taylor v. Lastres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Ever Win, Inc. v. 1-10 Industry Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Lupo v. Montauk Properties, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated February 19, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant Solveigh Bergstol for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice on a sidewalk located on property owned by the defendant Solveigh Bergstol and leased to the United States Postal Service. The plaintiff alleged that the roof of a building on the property was improperly designed, constructed, and maintained, causing snow to accumulate on the roof, which then melted, dripped onto the sidewalk, and refroze.

Generally, an out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless it has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions (see Vijayan v Bally’s Total Fitness, 289 AD2d *526224 [2001]; Berado v City of Mount Vernon, 262 AD2d 513 [1999]). Here, Bergstol established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to remove snow and ice from the premises (see Jackson v United States Tennis Assn., 294 AD2d 470 [2002]; Shrenkel v New York State Dormitory Auth., 266 AD2d 369 [1999]; Carvano v Morgan, 270 AD2d 222 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s contention that the roof of the building was improperly designed, constructed, and maintained was purely speculative. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Bergstol’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. Altman, J.P., Florio, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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