| Candelario v Watervliet Hous. Auth. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09855 [46 AD3d 1073] |
| December 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Maria Candelario, Respondent, v Watervliet Housing Authority etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] E. Stewart Jones, P.L.L.C., Troy (W. Farley Jones of counsel), for respondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered March 29,2007 in Albany County, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Plaintiff commenced this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when she slippedand fell on ice and snow at approximately 8:00 p.m. on January 9, 2005 after exiting her car inthe parking lot of the apartment complex where she lived. Defendant Van Rensselaer VillageHouses, Inc. owns the complex and defendant Watervliet Housing Authority (hereinafter WHA)provides maintenance at the premises including snow removal. Following disclosure, defendantsmoved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint asserting the apartment parking lot wasin a reasonably safe condition. Supreme Court found that plaintiff submitted sufficient proof toraise triable issues and, accordingly, denied the motion. Defendants appeal.
Defendants have the threshold burden when seeking summary judgment of establishing thatthey maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition and neither created nor had actual orconstructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Dickerson v Troy Hous. Auth., 34 AD3d 1003, 1005 [2006];Richardson v Rotterdam Sq. Mall, 289 AD2d 679, 679 [2001]). If they meet that burden,plaintiff must then come forward with evidence establishing triable issues in order to avertsummary disposition (see Schissler v Athens Assoc., 19 AD3d [*2]979, 979 [2005]; Kappes v Cohoes Bowling Arena, 2 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2003]). Theproof presented is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant (see Amidon v Yankee Trails, Inc., 17AD3d 835, 836 [2005]).
The day prior to plaintiff's accident between five and six inches of snow fell in a storm thatended by 7:00 p.m. on January 8, 2005. Thereafter, temperatures remained below freezing untilafter plaintiff's fall some 25 hours after the storm had ceased. Defendants submitted evidence thatWHA had crews at the premises on January 8, 2005 and they cleared snow, sanded, and saltedthe subject parking lot. Maintenance personnel from WHA allegedly returned on January 9, 2005for visual inspection of the premises and application of ice melting substances where needed.This proof was sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff.
Plaintiff testified that when she departed the apartment complex during daylight hours on theafternoon of the accident, there was ice all over the parking lot. She recalled that the parking lotwas in the same condition when she returned that evening. She described the lighting conditionsas dim and, to keep from falling as she exited her car and moved toward the rear to get herchildren, she held onto the side of the car. She nevertheless slipped and fell. Plaintiff alsoproduced affidavits from several residents of the apartment complex stating that, at no timeduring January 2005 had they seen any evidence of sand, salt or other substances intended to meltice in the parking lot despite the need therefor because of the presence of extensive ice. We agreewith Supreme Court that plaintiff set forth adequate evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see e.g. Saunders v Bryant's Towing,27 AD3d 992, 994-995 [2006]; Schissler v Athens Assoc., 19 AD3d at 979-980).
Crew III, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,with costs.