Case Name: Milivoje Karalic et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Respondent, Brahim Musovic et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2003-07-07
Citations: 307 A.D.2d 254
Docket Number: 
Parties: Milivoje Karalic et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Respondent, Brahim Musovic et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 307
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Milivoje Karalic et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Respondent, Brahim Musovic et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
[762 NYS2d 271]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Brahim Musovic, Selim Musovic, and Becir Musovic appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated June 27, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellants, property owners, failed to establish as a matter of law that their superintendent's snow removal activities did not cause, create, or otherwise increase the allegedly hazardous icy condition which resulted in the plaintiff Milivoje Karalic's injuries (see Mahoney v Affrunti, 297 AD2d 717 [2002]; Giamboi v Manor House Owners Corp., 277 AD2d 201, 202 [2000]; Baillet v Auerbach, 277 AD2d 335 [2000]). Since the appellants failed to meet their burden, it is not necessary to consider whether the papers in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188 [2000]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.