You are here: / / STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP...

STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Defendants established they had no duty to remove snow at the time of plaintiff’s fall under the storm in progress doctrine. The court noted that the duty to render a parking lot safe does not entail the removal of all the snow:

It is undisputed that defendants met their initial burden on the motion “by establishing that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident and, thus, that they had no duty to remove the snow and ice until a reasonable time ha[d] elapsed after cessation of the storm” … . In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ” whether the accident was caused by a slippery condition at the location where [she] fell that existed prior to the storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and that the defendant[s] had actual or constructive notice of the preexisting condition’ ” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was entitled to rely upon the theory that the icy condition formed prior to the storm upon the melting and refreezing of snow piles created by defendants’ plowing practices … , we conclude that plaintiff’s assertion is based on mere speculation and thus is insufficient to raise an issue of fact … . Indeed, in surmising that there must have been snow piles throughout the parking lot from prior accumulations, plaintiff relied upon inadmissible printouts from a weather data website … , as well as defendants’ general practices regarding snow removal as set forth in their contract … . The record is devoid of competent evidence that any such snow piles existed or, more specifically, that a pile of snow was located near the area of the parking lot where plaintiff fell that had melted and had then refrozen prior to the storm, resulting in the icy condition that caused plaintiff’s accident … . Finally, to the extent that plaintiff contends that defendants’ snow removal efforts created the hazardous condition because they did not properly care for the area where she fell even though they had treated other areas of the parking lot during the storm, we note that it is well settled that ” [t]he mere failure to remove all snow and ice from a . . . parking lot does not constitute negligence’ and does not constitute creation of a hazard” … . Hanifan v Cor Dev. Co., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07498, 4th Dept 11-10-16

NEGLIGENCE (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD)/STORM IN PROGRESS (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD)/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD)

You might also like
WAIVER OF INDICTMENT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE NOT INCLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA FOUND IN HIS GIRLFRIEND’S APARTMENT WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS AND PRAPHERNALIA WAS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
FALL FROM TRUCK BED 20 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1).
MOTHER WAS EXPERIENCING COVID-LIKE SYMPTOMS AND THE COURT RULES PROHIBITED HER ENTRY; HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Where the Manufacturer Was Not At Fault in a Products Liability Action, the Retailer Is Not Entitled to Indemnification for the Costs of Defending the Action from the Manufacturer
AFTER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THE PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DEFENDANT SHARED THE INTENT OF HIS SON, WHO STABBED THE VICTIM EIGHT TIMES.
Conviction Overturned for the Second Time Because of Misconduct by the Same Prosecutor
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY A CHALLENGED ZONING ORDINANCE ARE NOT NECESSARY... PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN...