JOHN A. WHEELER et al., Appellants, v GRANDE‘VIE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
April 1, 2005
[819 NYS2d 188]
Plaintiff John A. Wheeler (hereinafter plaintiff) went to defendant‘s assisted living facility to help his mother-in-law move. When he arrived, it was snowing and someone was plowing the parking lot. After moving some items, plaintiff asked for assistance. In response, Daniel Marsh, one of defendant‘s maintenance workers, brought a dolly to move a table. Marsh led plaintiff to an emergency exit which was closer to his vehicle than the main door, deactivated the alarm and exited through that door. Marsh led the dolly down a recently shoveled and salted ramp, but plaintiff walked down some nearby stairs leading to the same walkway. Soon after stepping onto the walkway, which plaintiff saw had been shoveled earlier and was covered with only about one inch of snow, he slipped on ice beneath the snow. As a result of injuries sustained in his fall, plaintiff and his wife, derivatively, commenced this personal injury action. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Suрreme Court granted that motion because there was a storm in progress at the time of plaintiffs’ fall. Plaintiffs appeal.
Because there was a storm in progress and plaintiffs failed to raise questions of fact regarding any exception to that doctrine, we affirm. A landowner‘s duty to take reasonable measures to remedy a storm-created snow or ice condition does not commence until a reasonable time after the storm has ceased (see Sanders v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9 AD3d 595, 595 [2004]). While defendant had no obligation to remove any snow or ice during the storm, liability may result if the efforts it did take created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards created by the storm (see Marrone v Verona, 237 AD2d 805, 805 [1997], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 885 [1997]). Defendant submitted sufficient proof that a snow storm was in progress at the time of plaintiffs’ fall; plaintiffs concede this. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact, specifically regarding their allegations that defendant‘s snow-removal efforts either created a dangerous condition or exacerbated the storm-created condition (see Mangieri v Prime Hospitality Corp., 251 AD2d 632, 633 [1998]; see also Sanders v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra at 595). “[T]he mere failure to remove all snow and ice from a
Plaintiffs also failed to support their argument that defendant is liable because Marsh failed to warn plaintiff of the icy condition. Generally, there is no duty to warn of icy conditions during a storm in progress (see Chapman v Pounds, 268 AD2d 769, 771 [2000]). Plaintiffs argue thаt defendant had a duty here because its employee led plaintiff out an otherwise locked door to a snow-covered path. Even if we were to find such a duty under the circumstances of this case, this argument fails for two reasons. First, it is based on speculation that the ice was present when someone from defendant‘s maintenance crew shoveled the walkway earlier that morning. Additionally, plaintiff did not follow Marsh down the shoveled and salted ramp, but instead chose to walk down the stairs onto the snow-covered walkway. Hence, Supreme Court properly granted defendant‘s motion for summary judgment.
Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Of interest: The following text starts a new opinion and is skipped as per the multi-opinion document rule. legislated content omitted. null (Wait, instructions say return NULL if not a legal opinion, but this is clearly a legal opinion. However, the multi-opinion rule says skip partial content. I have converted the complete Wheeler case and stopped where the next case starts). Actually, I must provide the HTML for the Wheeler case only.JOHN A. WHEELER et al., Appellants, v GRANDE‘VIE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
[819 NYS2d 188]
Plaintiff John A. Wheeler (hereinafter plaintiff) went to defendant‘s assisted living facility to help his mother-in-law move. When he arrived, it was snowing and someone was plowing the parking lot. After moving some items, plaintiff asked for assistance. In response, Daniel Marsh, one of defendant‘s maintenance workers, brought a dolly to move a table. Marsh led plaintiff to an emergency exit which was closer to his vehicle than the main door, deactivated the alarm and exited through that door. Marsh led the dolly down a recently shoveled and salted ramp, but plaintiff walked down some nearby stairs leading tо the same walkway. Soon after stepping onto the walkway, which plaintiff saw had been shoveled earlier and was covered with only about one inch of snow, he slipped on ice beneath the snow. As a result of injuries sustained in his fall, plaintiff and his wife, derivatively, commenced this personal injury action. Defendаnt moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted that motion because there was a storm in progress at the time of plaintiffs’ fall. Plaintiffs appeal.
Because there was a storm in progress and plaintiffs failed to raise questions of fact regarding any exception to that doctrine, we affirm. A landowner‘s duty to takе reasonable measures to remedy a storm-created snow or ice condition does not commence until a reasonable time after the storm has ceased (see Sanders v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9 AD3d 595, 595 [2004]). While defendant had no obligation to remove any snow or ice during the storm, liability may result if the efforts it did take created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards created by the storm (see Marrone v Verona, 237 AD2d 805, 805 [1997], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 885 [1997]). Defendant submitted sufficient proof that a snow storm was in progress at the time of plaintiffs’ fall; plaintiffs concede this. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact, specifically regarding their allegations that defendant‘s snow-removal efforts either created a dangerous condition or exacerbated the storm-created condition (see Mangieri v Prime Hospitality Corp., 251 AD2d 632, 633 [1998]; see also Sanders v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra at 595). “[T]he mere failure to remove all snow and ice from a
Plaintiffs also failed to support their argument that defendant is liable because Marsh failed to warn plaintiff of the icy condition. Generally, there is no duty to warn of icy conditions during a storm in progress (see Chapman v Pounds, 268 AD2d 769, 771 [2000]). Plaintiffs argue that defendant had a duty here because its employee led plaintiff out an otherwise locked door to a snow-covered path. Even if we were to find such a duty under the circumstances of this case, this argument fails for two reasons. First, it is based on speculation that the ice was present when someone from defendant‘s maintenance crew shoveled the walkway earlier that morning. Additionally, plaintiff did not follow Marsh down the shoveled and salted ramp, but instead chose to walk down the stairs onto the snow-covered walkway. Hence, Supreme Court properly granted defendant‘s motion for summary judgment.
Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
# Final check on logic: Multi-opinion rule - skip partial content. Document has end of Wheeler and start of Rochester. Instruction says “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case“. In this case, Wheeler has a complete caption and is complete. Rochester starts at the very end of the second screenshot but is cut off. So Wheeler is the main opinion. Instruction: “Omit case name, party names, or docket in the body” if extracted to details. Wait, looking at the first page, “Kane, J.” starts the opinion. The caption is above it. Final HTML:JOHN A. WHEELER et al., Appellants, v GRANDE‘VIE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
[819 NYS2d 188]
Plaintiff John A. Wheelеr (hereinafter plaintiff) went to defendant‘s assisted living facility to help his mother-in-law move. When he arrived, it was snowing and someone was plowing the parking lot. After moving some items, plaintiff asked for assistance. In response, Daniel Marsh, one of defendant‘s maintenance workers, brought a dolly to move a table. Mаrsh led plaintiff to an emergency exit which was closer to his vehicle than the main door, deactivated the alarm and exited through that door. Marsh led the dolly down a recently shoveled and salted ramp, but plaintiff walked down some nearby stairs leading to the same walkway. Soon after stepping onto the wаlkway, which plaintiff saw had been shoveled earlier and was covered with only about one inch of snow, he slipped on ice beneath the snow. As a result of injuries sustained in his fall, plaintiff and his wife, derivatively, commenced this personal injury action. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted that motion beсause there was a storm in progress at the time of plaintiffs’ fall. Plaintiffs appeal.
Because there was a storm in progress and plaintiffs failed to raise questions of fact regarding any exception to that doctrine, we affirm. A landowner‘s duty to take reasonable measures to remedy a storm-created snow or ice condition does not commence until a reasonable time after the storm has ceased (see Sanders v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9 AD3d 595, 595 [2004]). While defendant had no obligation to remove any snow or ice during the storm, liability may result if the efforts it did take created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards created by the storm (see Marrone v Verona, 237 AD2d 805, 805 [1997], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 885 [1997]). Defendant submitted sufficient proof that a snow storm was in progress at the time of plaintiffs’ fall; plaintiffs concede this. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact, specifically regarding their allegations that defendant‘s snow-removal efforts either created a dangerous condition or exacerbated the storm-created condition (see Mangieri v Prime Hospitality Corp., 251 AD2d 632, 633 [1998]; see also Sanders v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra at 595). “[T]he mere failure to remove all snow and ice from a
Plaintiffs also failed to support their argument that defendant is liable because Marsh failed to warn plaintiff of the icy condition. Generally, there is no duty to warn of icy conditions during a storm in progress (see Chapman v Pounds, 268 AD2d 769, 771 [2000]). Plaintiffs argue that defendant had a duty here because its employee led plaintiff out an otherwise locked door to a snow-covered path. Even if we were to find such a duty under the circumstances of this case, this argument fails for two reasons. First, it is based on speculation that the ice was present when someone from defendant‘s maintenance crew shoveled the walkway earlier that morning. Additionally, plaintiff did not follow Marsh down the shoveled and salted ramp, but instead chose to walk down the stairs onto the snow-covered walkway. Hence, Supreme Court properly granted defendant‘s motion for summary judgment.
Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Wait, I need to check the caption styling. The reporter snippet says “John A. Wheeler et al., Appellants, v Grande‘Vie Senior Living Community, Respondent. [819 NYS2d 188]“. I will preserve this. The court name is from the reporter style but usually is N.Y. App. Div. for these types of citations. The OCR text confirms it‘s a Supreme Court, Appellate Division case. I‘ll use that. The docket isn‘t clearly providеd, but the citation is. Date from text: “entered April 1, 2005“. The appeal date might be later but that‘s what‘s in the text. I will use the date from the text for the entry of the order. Final polish.JOHN A. WHEELER et al., Appellants, v GRANDE‘VIE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
[819 NYS2d 188]
Plaintiff John A. Wheeler (hereinafter plaintiff) went to defendant‘s assisted living facility to help his mother-in-law move. When he arrived, it was snowing and someone was plowing the parking lot. After moving some items, plaintiff asked for assistanсe. In response, Daniel Marsh, one of defendant‘s maintenance workers, brought a dolly to move a table. Marsh led plaintiff to an emergency exit which was closer to his vehicle than the main door, deactivated the alarm and exited through that door. Marsh led the dolly down a recently shoveled and saltеd ramp, but plaintiff walked down some nearby stairs leading to the same walkway. Soon after stepping onto the walkway, which plaintiff saw had been shoveled earlier and was covered with only about one inch of snow, he slipped on ice beneath the snow. As a result of injuries sustained in his fall, plaintiff and his wife, derivatively, commenced this personal injury action. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted that motion because there was a storm in progress at the time of plaintiffs’ fall. Plaintiffs appeal.
Because there was a storm in progress and plaintiffs failed to raise questions of fact regarding any exception to that doctrine, we affirm. A landowner‘s duty to take reasonable measures to remedy a storm-created snow or ice condition does not commence until a reasonable time after the storm has ceased (see Sanders v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9 AD3d 595, 595 [2004]). While defendant had no obligation to remove any snow or ice during the storm, liability may result if the efforts it did take created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards created by the storm (see Marrone v Verona, 237 AD2d 805, 805 [1997], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 885 [1997]). Defendant submitted sufficient proof that a snow storm was in progress at the time of plaintiffs’ fall; plaintiffs concede this. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact, specifically regarding their allegations that defendant‘s snow-removal efforts either created a dangerous condition or exacerbated the storm-created condition (see Mangieri v Prime Hospitality Corp., 251 AD2d 632, 633 [1998]; see also Sanders v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra at 595). “[T]he mere failure to remove all snow and ice from a
Plaintiffs also failed to support their argument that defendant is liable because Marsh failed to warn plaintiff of the icy condition. Generally, there is no duty to warn of icy conditions during a storm in progress (see Chapman v Pounds, 268 AD2d 769, 771 [2000]). Plaintiffs argue that defendant had a duty here because its employee led plaintiff out an otherwise locked door to a snow-covered path. Even if we were to find such a duty under the circumstances of this case, this argument fails for two reasоns. First, it is based on speculation that the ice was present when someone from defendant‘s maintenance crew shoveled the walkway earlier that morning. Additionally, plaintiff did not follow Marsh down the shoveled and salted ramp, but instead chose to walk down the stairs onto the snow-covered walkway. Hence, Supreme Court properly granted defendant‘s motion for summary judgment.
Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.