| Wood v Schenectady Mun. Hous. Auth. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07661 [77 AD3d 1273] |
| October 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Patricia Wood, Respondent, v Schenectady Municipal HousingAuthority, Appellant. |
—[*1] Conway & Kirby, L.L.P., Latham (Denis R. Hurley Jr. of counsel), for respondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kramer, J.), entered March 15,2010 in Schenectady County, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries that she sustained when she slippedand fell on ice on a sidewalk in an apartment complex that was owned and maintained bydefendant. Following joinder of issue, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint on the grounds that there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident and that ithad no notice of any icy condition. Supreme Court denied the motion and defendant appeals. Weaffirm.
The parties' conflicting testimony and meteorological evidence demonstrate that questions offact exist as to whether a storm was in progress at the time of plaintiff's accident, which, if therewas, would have suspended defendant's duty to remedy any alleged dangerous conditions for areasonable period of time after the storm had ceased (see Boynton v Eaves, 66 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2009]; Martin v Wagner, 30 AD3d 733,734 [2006]). The conflicting evidence also demonstrates that a question of fact exists as to howlong the ice upon which plaintiff slipped was in existence prior to the accident, whetherdefendant had actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous condition, and whetherdefendant had sufficient time to remedy any such condition. Finally, plaintiff testified that sheslipped [*2]after she stepped from the parking lot onto asnowbank located along the curb of the sidewalk, and one of defendant's employees testified thatthe snowbank was the result of defendant's prior snow removal efforts. This evidence raised aquestion of fact as to whether defendant created a dangerous condition (see Torosian v Bigsbee Vil. HomeownersAssn., 46 AD3d 1314, 1316 [2007]; see also Figueroa v West 170th Realty, Inc., 56 AD3d 299 [2008])or "exacerbated the natural hazards created by [a] storm" (Wheeler v Grande'Vie Senior Living Community, 31 AD3d 992,992 [2006]; see Micheler v Gush, 256 AD2d 1051, 1052 [1998]). Accordingly, SupremeCourt properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Peters, J.P., Spain, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withcosts.