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
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA, HOWEVER MOTHER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR FRITZ (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Notify Insured of Change in Coverage for Fire Insurance (In Violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) May Constitute a Deceptive Business Practice Under General Business Law 349
BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, APPELLATE COURT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SELLERS.
A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
City Failed to Affirmatively Prove It Did Not Have Notice of Dangerous Condition
HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT A “NON-MILITARY AFFIDAVIT” DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT IS NOT IN THE MILITARY IS A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING A MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IT IS NOT A GROUND FOR VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNLESS THE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATES HE OR SHE WAS, IN FACT, IN THE MILITARY (SECOND DEPT). ​
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (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

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