Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rivers v. Villford Realty Corporation

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

May 14, 2013

Vernetta Rivers, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Villford Realty Corporation, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Burns & Harris, New York (Christopher J. Donadio of counsel), for appellant.

Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris, P.C., New York (Adrienne Yaron of counsel), for respondents.

Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische, Clark, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered October 18, 2011, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff slipped on calcium chloride, a substance used to treat and prevent ice conditions, while exiting her apartment building. She admitted observing the calcium chloride pellets before her fall. The record shows that the presence of the calcium chloride was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous ( see Verdejo v New York City Hous. Auth., ___ A.D.3d ___, 2013 NY Slip Op 02323 [1st Dept 2013]; Baynes v City of New York, 81 A.D.3d 423 [1st Dept 2011]). Defendants' safety consultant established that using calcium chloride to combat snow and ice conditions was a good, accepted, and safe practice, consistent with industry standards, and that there were no standards that required removing "ice melt" when ice was not present. The expert opined that the calcium chloride would have been soft and pliable and would not have been slippery at the time of the accident, and thus, not hazardous. His affidavit was not speculative since it was based upon his review of deposition testimony, the weather report for the relevant period, his personal inspections of the premises, and a sample of the calcium chloride used there.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a dangerous condition. Consideration of the building superintendent's deposition testimony does not alter this conclusion.

We have considered plaintiff's contention based on public policy and find it unavailing.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.