| Sanchez v City of New York |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01395 [48 AD3d 275] |
| February 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Olga Sanchez, Respondent, v City of New York et al.,Defendants, and South Bronx Community Management Company, Inc.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Mirman, Markovits & Landau, P.C., New York City (Brad S. Levin of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul A. Victor, J.), entered May 23, 2007, which,upon reargument, adhered to a prior order denying the motion by defendant South BronxCommunity Management (SBCM) for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 9, 2006, unanimously dismissed,without costs, as superseded by appeal from the subsequent order on reargument.
Plaintiff's deposition testimony and statements in her opposing affidavit were notcontradictory, and any inconsistency as to her description of the ice/snow patch in the shoveledpathway on the sidewalk abutting SBCM's premises would be for the jury to resolve (Alvarezv New York City Hous. Auth., 295 AD2d 225, 226 [2002]). SBCM's superintendent testifiedthat his regular practice was to clear ice and snow from the entire sidewalk area abutting thepremises, while plaintiff testified that she fell on a dirty ice patch located within a narrowshoveled pathway, that there were other ice patches in the pathway, and that a safe alternativeroute to get around the hazard she slipped on did not exist. This raised triable issues of fact as towhether SBCM had been negligent in making the sidewalk area more hazardous by shoveling thepathway (see Rugova v 2199 Holland Ave. Apt. Corp., 272 AD2d 261 [2000]; cf. Sanders v City of New York, 17AD3d 169 [2005]). The differing opinions offered by the parties' meteorological experts asto whether, inter alia, it was cold enough, during the nearly 12-hour period after the four-inchsnowfall stopped, for a patch of snow/ice to remain on the shoveled pathway until the accident,raise issues of fact (see generally Vega vS.S.A. Props., Inc., 13 AD3d 298, 302 [2004]).[*2]
We have considered SBCM's remaining arguments andfind them without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Buckley and Gonzalez, JJ.