You are here: / / PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the legal malpractice action should have been dismissed because plaintiff could not have prevailed in the underlying slip and fall case. The slip and fall case was dismissed because the proper party was not served. The Second Department held that the plaintiff could not have proved liability for the slip and fall case because of the storm in progress rule:

[The] submissions demonstrated that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident, that there was no preexisting ice on the ground when the storm commenced, and that the property owner did not create or exacerbate the allegedly dangerous condition created by the storm in progress… . Since the defendants made a prima facie showing that the storm in progress rule applied to the underlying action, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to show that something other than the precipitation from the storm in progress caused the accident … . The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff could not have prevailed in the underlying action against the property owner … . Blair v Loduca, 2018 NY Slip Op 05744, Second Dept 6-15-18

ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/STORM IN PROGRESS (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
CPLR 205 (a), WHICH ALLOWS SIX MONTHS FOR RECOMMENCING AN ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL, APPLIES TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IS A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PARTY WHICH STARTED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.
THE REPRESENTATION THAT THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WHEN, IN FACT, IT WAS A THREE-FAMILY DWELLING, WAS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE PROPERLY DISCLAIMED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER CPLR 3001 TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON THE PROPER RATE FOR POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST; ANOTHER COURT’S PRIOR DISCUSSION OF THE PROPER INTEREST RATE WAS MERELY ADVISORY (I.E., NOT ON THE MERITS) AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED PLAINTIFF WIFE $25,000 AS AN INTEREST IN HER HUSBAND’S MBA DEGREE; MARITAL ASSETS WERE USED TO PROCURE THE DEGREE AND THE COST OF THE DEGREE IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR SUCH AN AWARD (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIPPING ON A STAIRCASE STEP, THE PERMANENT STAIRCASE IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TWO YOUNG MEN DID NOT REALIZE THE CONCRETE THEY WERE MOVING WAS A CESSPOOL COVER; ONE FELL IN AND THE OTHER JUMPED IN TO RESCUE HIM; BOTH DIED FROM CHEMICAL ASPHYXIATION; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE COVER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, WHETHER THE CESSPOOL CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND WHETHER THE RESCUE ATTEMPT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD WAS ENTITLED TO A FINDING THAT REUNIFICATION WITH HIS MOTHER IN EL SALVADOR WAS NOT VIABLE DUE TO PARENTAL NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S REFUSING TO CONSENT TO AN INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM AND HER DELAY IN SCHEDULING AN INDEPENDENT NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE CHILD DID NOT CONSTITUTE EDUCATIONAL OR MEDICAL NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CONTEXT DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE... PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN CHAIR IN CUSTODIAN’S BREAK ROOM COLLAPSED, SCHOOL...