Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Yvars v. Marble Hgts. of Westchester, Inc.
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 1352Docket: 2016-06974
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 27, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In *Yvars v. Marble Heights of Westchester, Inc.*, the Appellate Division, Second Department reviewed a personal injury case where the plaintiff, Pamela Yvars, appealed a June 21, 2016 order from the Supreme Court of Westchester County. The plaintiff was injured after slipping on ice in her condominium complex and sued both Marble Heights of Westchester, Inc., the homeowners association, and Sal Gentile Landscaping, LLC, the snow removal contractor. The court modified the previous order by denying Gentile's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint against it, while affirming the dismissal of the complaint against Marble Heights. The decision hinged on established legal principles regarding the liability of contractors in tort. Typically, a limited contractual obligation for snow removal does not make a contractor liable for third-party injuries. However, the Court of Appeals identified three exceptions where liability could arise: (1) if the contractor fails to exercise reasonable care, creating a risk of harm; (2) if the plaintiff relies on the contractor's performance; and (3) if the contractor completely takes over the responsibility for maintaining safety on the premises. The court noted that Gentile did not contest the allegations that its actions may have worsened the icy conditions, which could establish liability under the first exception. Consequently, the case was returned for further proceedings regarding Gentile's potential liability. Costs were awarded to both parties, with the plaintiff receiving a bill of costs from Gentile and Marble Heights being ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff. Gentile presented evidence it believed showed it did not cause harm; however, it failed to provide information on its snow removal efforts prior to the plaintiff's accident. Consequently, Gentile did not sufficiently demonstrate that it did not create a harmful condition. Because of this lack of evidence, the court did not need to consider the plaintiff's opposing arguments, resulting in the denial of Gentile's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it. Conversely, Marble Heights successfully demonstrated it had no actual or constructive notice of the black ice condition that led to the plaintiff's slip, countering the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute against Marble Heights' motion for summary judgment, which was granted. Justice Balkin and Justices Austin, LaSalle, and Brathwaite Nelson concurred with this decision.