You are here: / / STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE...

STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined defendant Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The storm in progress rule did not apply because the precipitation stopped 12 hours before the fall, and the temperature dipped below freezing 10 hours before the fall:

Home Depot failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that there was a storm in progress at the time of the injured plaintiff’s accident or that it did not have a reasonable opportunity after the cessation of the storm to remedy the allegedly dangerous condition … . The climatological data submitted by Home Depot showed that there was an accumulation of about three inches of snow, which had ceased to fall by 7:00 p.m. on January 18, 2004, about 12 hours prior to the accident, and that the temperature dropped to below freezing by 9:00 p.m., about 10 hours prior to the accident, and remained below freezing through the time of the accident. Thus, Home Depot failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have a reasonable time to ameliorate the snow and ice condition in the parking lot … . Morris v Home Depot USA, 2017 NY Slip Op 05717, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)/STORM IN PROGRESS (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR BY NOT SEEKING A STAY OF ARBITRATION, THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT A PASSENGER AT THE TIME OF THE HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; FATHER ATTEMPTED TO ATTEND THE HEARING, BUT WAS LATE; FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL BUT NONE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED; AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT ABANDON THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONCERNING STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BASED UPON THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE STATUTORY-RAPE COMPLAINANT TO DETERMINE THE RELEVANCE OF HER PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY (A MATERIAL STAGE OF THIS PROCEEDING); DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT FOR WHICH NO 710.30 NOTICE WAS PROVIDED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF INTENT, MOTIVE, OR LACK OF MISTAKE WAS NOT RELEVANT TO STATUTORY RAPE (SECOND DEPT).
MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT CONDUCT A HEARING OR FOLLOW THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT FORMULA FOR CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATIONS; IN ADDITION THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE STRONG PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST RESTITUTION OR RECOUPMENT OF CHIILD SUPPORT ALREADY PAID; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER WAS LIABLE FOR A LATENT DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE... PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION...