From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Finley v. Weill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 16, 1999
264 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

August 16, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the appellants owed an independent duty of care to the plaintiffs, as well as to the defendant Theodore C. Weill, and that there was an issue of fact with respect to the appellants' role in creating the icy condition at issue ( see, Genen v. Metro-North Commuter R. R., 261 A.D.2d 211; Currier v. Wiltrom Assocs., 250 A.D.2d 956; Phillips v. Seril, 209 A.D.2d 496; Varga v. Parker, 136 A.D.2d 932; see also, English v. City of Albany, 235 A.D.2d 977).

O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Finley v. Weill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 16, 1999
264 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Finley v. Weill

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK FINLEY et al., Respondents, v. THEODORE C. WEILL, Defendant and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 16, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
693 N.Y.S.2d 854

Citing Cases

Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors

See Genen v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. ( 261 A.D.2d 211, 214 [1st Dept 1999]); Piccirillo v. Beltrone-Turner…

Dini v. Imperial Workwear Services, Inc.

The plaintiff alleged that the ridge in the mat constituted a dangerous condition which was caused by the…