Majority
—In a negligence action to recover dam
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that, under the particular circumstances presented, “there is a question of fact concerning whether or not the [defendant] City [of New York] had an adequate opportunity to remedy the [snow and ice] condition that allegedly caused the plaintiffs accident”. The court was therefore correct in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see generally, Candelier v City of New York, 129 AD2d 145 ; Krause v City of New York, 152 AD2d 473 ; cf., Canario v City of New York, 246 AD2d 618 ; Martinez v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 238 AD2d 286 ). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Candelier v. City of New York 129 AD2d 145 p. 614
- Krause v. City of New York 152 AD2d 473 p. 614
- Martinez v. Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center 238 AD2d 286 p. 614