A New York appellate court has reinstated a lawsuit against Groundhog Landscaping and Lawncare, Inc. after a slip and fall incident involving Jeffrey Polisoto. This decision affects the plaintiffs, who are seeking damages for injuries sustained during the accident, and it clarifies the responsibilities of contractors in maintaining safe premises.

The case, titled Polisoto v. St. Gregory the Great R.C. Church, was decided on June 26, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, under docket number 477 CA 25-00387. The court's ruling could impact how landscaping and maintenance companies are held accountable in similar situations.

Background

Jeffrey L. Polisoto and Tracy E. Polisoto are the plaintiffs in this case, and they brought the lawsuit against St. Gregory the Great Roman Catholic Church, Kaleida Health, and Groundhog Landscaping. The dispute arose after Jeffrey Polisoto allegedly slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot owned by St. Gregory and leased to Kaleida Health.

According to the court documents, Kaleida Health had a five-year lease with St. Gregory, which included provisions for snow plowing services for the parking area. Groundhog Landscaping was contracted by Kaleida to maintain the parking lot, which is where the incident took place. After the fall, the plaintiffs sought damages for the injuries Jeffrey sustained, leading to the current legal action.

The Ruling

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by reinstating the amended complaint against Groundhog Landscaping. The original ruling from the lower court had granted summary judgment to Groundhog Landscaping, dismissing the complaint against them. However, the appellate court found that a question of fact existed regarding whether the agreement between Groundhog Landscaping and Kaleida Health displaced the obligations of Kaleida and St. Gregory to maintain the parking lot.

The court stated, "Although the terms of the agreement did not require Groundhog Landscaping to salt the parking lot, the owner and president of Groundhog Landscaping testified that the 'services' included both plowing and salting of the parking lot."

This statement highlights the court's reasoning that Groundhog Landscaping may have had a responsibility to ensure the parking lot was safe, which includes salting to prevent ice formation. The judges involved in this decision were Whalen, Lindley, Ogden, Nowak, and Delconte.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving slip and fall incidents where landscaping or maintenance companies are involved. It emphasizes that contractors may still hold a duty of care to third parties, even if they are not directly part of the contractual agreement. The decision could lead to increased scrutiny of how maintenance companies manage their responsibilities regarding safety on premises they service.

Furthermore, the court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' cross-motion to disqualify counsel for St. Gregory and Kaleida Health indicates that the plaintiffs lacked standing in this regard. This aspect of the ruling clarifies the requirements for establishing conflicts of interest in legal representation.

What's Next

The case will now proceed with the reinstated complaint against Groundhog Landscaping. It remains to be seen if the defendants will appeal the ruling or if there are any related cases pending that could influence this matter.