1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.2d
  4. 259 A.D.2d
  5. 259 A.D.2d 346 (1999)
 

ZAPATA v. FINKELSTEIN

259 A.D.2d 346 (1999)

687 N.Y.S.2d 34

EMMA ZAPATA, Respondent, v. REUVEN FINKELSTEIN et al., Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided March 16, 1999.

The denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment was proper since the present record does not permit a determination, as a matter of law, that there was no interval between the snowfall and consequent accumulation upon which plaintiff claims to have injured herself (see, Croff v Grand Union Co., 205 A.D.2d 856), or that, if there was an interval, it was insufficient to permit defendant property owners to discover and remedy...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases