You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL...

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE EXACERBATED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact in this slip and fall case. Although there was a storm in progress, defendant’s snow removal efforts may have exacerbated the ice condition (facts not described in decision):

Here, in support of its motion, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, which included the affidavit of its meteorologist, as well as certified climatological data, which demonstrated that the subject accident occurred while a storm was in progress … . In opposition, the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff, which included her affidavit and the affidavit of her meteorologist, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether any snow removal efforts the defendant undertook prior to the accident in relation to the storm either created or exacerbated the ice condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall … . Dylan v CEJ Props., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02403, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

You might also like
Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Have Been Granted, No Prejudice
THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE THERAPIST THAT THE CHILDREN SUFFERED FROM PTSD, EXPERIENCED TRAUMA, AND EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO STOP SEEING THEIR FATHER, COUPLED WITH THE CHILDREN’S STATEMENTS THAT THEY WITNESSED ABUSE, WARRANTED TERMINATION OF PARENTAL ACCESS WITH FATHER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
A JUDGE CANNOT DELEGATE PARENTAL ACCESS DETERMINATIONS TO A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
Unrecorded Purchase Money Mortgage Did Not Have Priority Over Mortgage Recorded by Good-Faith Lender for Value
Principles of Owner/Contractor’s Liability Pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6) Succinctly Explained—Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault Must Be Demonstrated—Absence of Actual or Constructive Notice on the Owner/Contractor’s Part Is Not a Defense
ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Right to Call and Question Witnesses.
Criteria for Downward Departure (SORA)​

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

19 YEAR OLD NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WRITTEN NOTICE OF SIDEWALK D... FOOT OF A DECORATIVE FENCE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS...