Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Lichtman v. Village of Kiryas Joel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 27, 2011

90 A.D.3d 1001; 935 N.Y.2d 331

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Ali v. Village of Pleasantville (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Smith v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Serebrenik v. Chelsea Apts., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
O'Sullivan v. City of Long Beach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Gilbert v. City of Rye (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Mahabir v. Suffolk County Water Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Lima v. Village of Garden City (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Pipitone v. Mineola Realty Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
David v. Chong Sun Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
David v. Chong Sun Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Keating v. Town of Oyster Bay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Keating v. Town of Oyster Bay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Quintanilla v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Cuebas v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Cuebas v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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

The plaintiff Akiva Lichtman (hereinafter the plaintiff) slipped and fell on a patch of ice in a municipal parking lot of the defendant, Village of Kiryas Joel, allegedly sustaining injuries. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Village demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that there was no prior written notice of the existence of the icy condition (see Village Law § 6-628; CPLR 9804). Thus, in order to defeat the Village’s motion, the plaintiffs were required to come forward with admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village either created or exacerbated the icy condition through its affirmative negligent acts, or whether a special use conferred a special benefit on the Village (see San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 16 NY3d 111 [2010]; Petrillo v Town of Hempstead, 85 AD3d 996 [2011]; Kiszenik v Town of Huntington, 70 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2010]). The plaintiffs failed to meet that burden.

The failure to remove all of the snow or ice from a parking lot is not an affirmative act of negligence (see Wohlars v Town of *1002Islip, 71 AD3d 1007 [2010]; Stallone v Long Is. R.R., 69 AD3d 705 [2010]; Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck, 67 AD3d 733 [2009], affd 17 NY3d 125 [2011]). The plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence that the patch of ice was created as a consequence of an affirmative act of negligence by the Village. The plaintiffs conclusory and speculative deposition testimony that a snow pile created by the Village’s snow plowing efforts the day before the accident melted and refroze, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck, 17 NY3d 125, 129-130 [2011]; Lysohir v County of Suffolk, 10 AD3d 638, 639 [2004]; Myrow v City of Poughkeepsie, 3 AD3d 480, 481 [2004]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the Village’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.E, Lott, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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