FINLEY v. WEILL

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the appellants owed an independent duty of care to the plaintiffs, as well as to the defendant Theodore C. Weill, and that there was an issue of fact with respect to the appellants' role in creating the icy condition at issue ( see, Genen v. Metro-North Commuter R. R., 261 A.D.2d 211; Currier v. Wiltrom Assocs., 250 A.D.2d 956; Phillips v. Seril, 209 A.D.2d 496; Varga v. Parker, 136 A.D.2d 932; see also, English v. City of Albany, 235 A.D.2d 977).

O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.