Carla Hamelin v Town of Chateaugay Brief Case Questions Read the files in this question and brief a case. How to brief a case? Reported judicial decision

Carla Hamelin v Town of Chateaugay Brief Case Questions Read the files in this question and brief a case.

How to brief a case?

Reported judicial decisions have a style and format all their own. While judges have considerable freedom in how they write opinions, some uniformity of pattern comes from the similarity of purpose for decisions. This is especially true for decisions of appellate courts, which frequently serve as authority for later cases. Judges write decisions for two reasons. The first is to inform the parties to the dispute who won and who lost, giving the rules and reasoning the judge applied to the facts. The second is to inform the legal profession, attorneys and judges, and the public of the rules applied to a given set of facts and the reasons for the decision so that decision can be used as a precedent in the future. As we learned last week, the doctrine of stare decisis states that when a court has set forth such a legal principle, that court and all lower courts under it must apply that principle in future cases where the facts are substantially the same.

Location of Cases

Cases are generally found in the law library in reporters, advance sheets, or loose-leaf publications. Cases can also be found through online research services such as Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw Loislaw, and on the web by linking to various sites including the courts themselves. Libraries designated as government depositories may also have cases in slip opinion form.

Case Citation

A citation is an abbreviation used to refer to a legal authority that allows the reader to find the legal authority in the law library or in electronic form. When you answer a research question or perform legal analysis, it is expected that your answer or analysis be backed up by a citation to your legal authority. It is important that you learn correct citation form, because that form allows legal professionals to speak the same language. More importantly, it allows others reading your work to find the cases or other authority that you used to make a legal arguement so that they can read the material themselves. Correctly citing cases and other authority is a sign of careful attention to detail and strengthens your written arguments by validating your work and allowing the reader to quickly find those authorities upon which you relied and see that they say what you claim they say. — N.Y.S.2d —-, 2012 WL 5950402 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08214
Judges and Attorneys
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Carla HAMELIN, Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF CHATEAUGAY, Defendant,
and
Rick McDonald et al., Respondents.
Nov. 29, 2012.
Stafford, Piller, Murnane, Plimpton, Kelleher & Trombley, Plattsburgh (Thomas W. Plimpton of
counsel), for appellant.
O’Connor, O’Connor, Bresee & First, P.C., Albany (Margaret E. Dunham of counsel), for
respondents.
Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, MALONE JR., STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ.
STEIN, J.
*1 Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered December 21, 2011 in
Franklin County, which granted a motion by defendants Rick McDonald and Community Bowling
Center of Chateaugay, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing, among other things, the
complaint against them.
One early morning in May 2008, plaintiff tripped and fell while descending the steps located at
the side entrance to the Town of Chateaugay Municipal Office Building located in the Town of
Chateaugay, Franklin County, as she was leaving a privately owned bowling alley and bar
located within that building. The portion of the building within which the bowling alley was
located was leased from defendant Town of Chateaugay by defendant Community Bowling
Center of Chateaugay, Inc. and its owner, defendant Rick McDonald. The only access to the
bowling alley is through the side entrance, where there is a set of steps leading to two doors, the
left one of which leads to the bowling alley and the right one to various Town offices, among
other things. It is undisputed that, at the time of plaintiff’s fall, the side entrance steps were in a
deteriorating and dangerous condition. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendants,
seeking damages for the injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell. Community Bowling
Center and McDonald (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) subsequently moved
for, among other things, summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Supreme
Court granted defendants’ motion and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.
We affirm. In order to meet their burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment
dismissing the complaint, defendants were required to demonstrate the absence of ownership,
occupancy, control or special use with regard to the side entrance steps and that they neither
created nor had authority to remedy the dangerous condition thereof, thus eliminating any duty
of care to plaintiff ( see Semzock v. State of New York, 97 AD3d 1012, 1012 [2012]; Silverberg
v. Palmerino, 61 AD3d 1032, 1034 [2009]; Kozak v. Broadway Joe’s, 296 A.D.2d 683, 684
[2002]; Vander Veer v. Henderson, 267 A.D.2d 584, 586 [1999] ). The existence of a duty is a
question of law which is properly addressed by the court ( see Darby v. Compagnie Natl. Air
France, 96 N.Y.2d 343, 347 [2001]; Gadani v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 64 AD3d 1098,
1102 [2009] ).
In support of their motion, defendants submitted, among other things, photographs of the
steps, a copy of the lease between McDonald and the Town and the deposition testimony of,
among others, McDonald and the Town Supervisor. That evidence demonstrated that the leased
premises were limited to the basement floor of the building and that defendants were prohibited
from making any changes to such premises without the Town’s written consent. Additionally, the
steps in question—which have undisputedly been deteriorating over a period of time—are used
by several tenants and the general public. They, therefore, constitute a common area that the
landlord is generally responsible for maintaining ( see generally Wynn v. T.R.I.P. Redevelopment
Assoc., 296 A.D.2d 176, 178–179 [2002] ). Indeed, the deposition testimony established that
the Town did not ask defendants to maintain or repair the steps. The evidence further
demonstrated that defendants did not create the dangerous condition of the steps or have the
authority to remedy such condition. Based upon this evidence, defendants met their initial
burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and shifted the burden
to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324
[1986]; U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Koko Contr., Inc., 97 AD3d 893, 894 [2012] ).
*2 We agree with Supreme Court’s determination that, even viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to plaintiff, she failed to meet this burden. In particular, the fact that defendants
cleared snow from the side entrance steps when necessary is not sufficient to establish their
control over the steps ( see Vander Veer v. Henderson, 267 A.D.2d at 586; Golds v. Del Aguila,
259 A.D.2d 942 [1999]; Figueroa v. Tso, 251 A.D.2d 959 [1998] ). FN1 Accordingly, Supreme
Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
FN1. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not argue, either in Supreme Court or in her appellate brief, that
defendants had a duty to warn their patrons of the condition of the steps, such argument is
deemed abandoned ( see Womack v. Wilhelm, 96 AD3d 1308, 1309 n1 [2012]; Kittner v.
Eastern Mut. Ins. Co., 80 AD3d 843, 845 n2 [2011], lvs dismissed 16 NY3d 890 [2011], 18 NY3d
911 [2012] ). Moreover, under the circumstances here, even if such argument had been properly
raised, we would find it to be without merit.
To the extent not specifically addressed herein, plaintiff’s remaining contentions have been
considered and found to be without merit.
PETERS, P.J., ROSE, MALONE JR. and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2012.
Hamelin v. Town of Chateaugay
— N.Y.S.2d —-, 2012 WL 5950402 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08214

Purchase answer to see full
attachment