Warboys v. SHI-III Briarcliff Reit, LLC

Background

The court considered Defendant Vista Construction & Landscape Contractors, Inc.’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 to reconsider the court’s May 19, 2021 decision and order on Vista’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Merrill and Kathryn Warboys opposed the motion. Andron Construction Corp. filed opposition on behalf of itself and the other identified defendants.

In the earlier decision, the court denied Vista summary judgment because the plaintiffs had presented a triable issue of fact—meaning a factual dispute that a jury could resolve—about whether Vista negligently plowed snow in the area where a plaintiff allegedly fell. The earlier decision stated that a reasonable jury could find that Vista pushed snow into piles around the parking lot, allowing water to pool and freeze where the fall allegedly occurred.

Motion for Reconsideration

Vista argued that the court had clearly erred by relying on evidence that the plaintiff observed piles of snow. The court agreed that the plaintiff did not expressly testify that he saw piles; the plaintiff testified that he saw snow on the sides of the parking lot and later said he did not recall whether the snow had been piled or was flat on the ground.

The court nevertheless concluded that other evidence created a factual dispute about whether Vista made snow piles. Vista’s manager, Fernando Borba, testified that Vista generally pushed snow onto the sides of the road. Andron’s superintendent, Brian Pease, testified that Vista would plow snow to a location where it could be removed from the asphalt or piled in a corner, and that the property’s personnel could tell Vista where to place the snow.

Based on that evidence, the court found a triable issue about whether Vista negligently created snow piles. It therefore found no clear error justifying reconsideration. The court also determined that Vista’s remaining arguments—including arguments about whether Vista created a dangerous condition through negligent snow removal, owed a duty of care, the plaintiffs’ expert opinion, and Andron’s entitlement to contribution—repeated arguments already considered and rejected in the earlier decision.

Disposition

The court denied Vista’s motion for reconsideration of the May 19, 2021 decision and order. The clerk was directed to terminate the docket entry for the motion. This order addressed reconsideration of the earlier summary-judgment ruling; it did not itself decide the negligence claims on their merits.