Rhonda Gordon v. SEB Development, LLC and Cozzwill, Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability and contractor liability for snow and ice removal under the Espinal exceptions.
Granted Cozzwill's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against it.
The grant of summary judgment in favor of Cozzwill and the dismissal of the complaint against it.
Triable issues of fact exist as to whether Cozzwill’s snow and ice removal obligations entirely displaced SEB’s duty to maintain the premises safely under the third Espinal exception; Cozzwill did not meet its initial burden, and, even if it had, plaintiff and SEB raised factual issues regarding the exclusivity and comprehensiveness of the agreement and the dual role of the individual controlling both entities.
Background
Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice while entering her workplace on property owned by SEB Development, LLC. SEB had a verbal agreement with Cozzwill, Inc. to perform repair and maintenance, including snow and ice removal. Inspections and directions for snow removal and repairs were made by an individual who was both a co-owner of SEB and the sole owner of Cozzwill. Plaintiff sought damages in a consolidated action for injuries sustained.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Erie County granted Cozzwill's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Cozzwill, as a contractor, owed no tort duty to plaintiff under the general Espinal rule that a contractual obligation does not, by itself, give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law, denied Cozzwill’s motion, and reinstated the complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants, the court held that Cozzwill’s own submissions created triable issues of fact as to whether its maintenance and snow removal obligations entirely displaced SEB’s duty to maintain the premises safely under the third Espinal exception. Even assuming Cozzwill met its initial burden, plaintiff and SEB raised additional issues of fact regarding whether the agreement was exclusive and comprehensive and on whose behalf the dual-owner acted.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that, under Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, 98 NY2d 136 (2002), a snow removal contractor may owe a duty to third parties where it entirely displaces the landowner’s duty to maintain the premises safely. Demonstrates that verbal or informal maintenance agreements, combined with evidence of exclusive control and operational direction, can create triable issues precluding summary judgment.
In slip-and-fall cases involving snow and ice, contractors cannot obtain summary judgment where evidence suggests their agreement may have exclusively and comprehensively assumed the landowner’s maintenance duties, especially when factual questions exist about control, scope, and the actions of individuals with overlapping ownership interests.