You are here: / / SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION...
,

SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant school district's motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The evidence demonstrated 19 inches of snow had fallen in the days preceding the slip and fall and the school district did not demonstrate the nature of the snow and ice removal efforts it made. The Second Department noted Supreme Court should not have considered the inadequate-lighting allegation because it was not in the notice of claim or the amended bill of particulars:

In support of its motion, the district submitted a certified weather report, which demonstrated that there was a snowstorm on February 13, 2014, resulting in a snow/ice accumulation of 11.8 inches, a snowstorm on February 14, 2014, with an additional snow/ice accumulation of 9.2 inches, and another inch of snow falling on February 15, 2014, followed by trace amounts on February 16, 2014, culminating in a snow/ice cover totaling 19 inches on the date of the accident. Moreover, the [*2]affidavits of the district's director of facilities and operations and middle school principal failed to provide any information about the district's snow and ice removal practices, or what was done to remove snow and ice from the premises prior to the accident, except to state generally that a facilities and operations staff member finished “all maintenance efforts” at the middle school by 2:59 p.m. on the date of the accident … .  Pickles v Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05787, Second Dept 8-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
HERE THE FIRST “NAIL AND MAIL” AFFIDAVIT BY THE PROCESS SERVER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED MAILING; A SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH DESCRIBED THE MAILING; THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE APPELLANT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING VALIDLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Police Officer (a Passenger in a Police Car) Who Was Injured by Underinsured Driver Was Covered By Police-Officer-Driver’s (Private) Underinsured Motorist Endorsement
Marching Band Director Did Not Assume the Risk of Injury Caused by a Defect in the Roadway
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING DAILY SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER, THE PLAINTIFF’S AND A FACULTY MEMBER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY FOR ABUSE AND THE ABUSE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MEDICATION DISPENSED BY DEFENDANT PHARMACY WAS PRESCRIBED, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE MEDICATION WAS CLEARLY CONTRAINDICATED; THE PHARMACIST MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (SECOND DEPT).
FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Admissions In Hospital Records Which Contradicted Plaintiff’s Trial Testimony Properly Admitted/Seat Belt Defense Should Not Have Been Submitted to the Jury—Insufficient Foundation/”Missing Witness” Jury-Instruction Request Not Supported by a Showing the Testimony Would Be “Material” and “Noncumulative”

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

PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF... TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY RESCINDED A 1987 NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR...