You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ PROOF DEMONSTRATED THE SNOW STORM WAS OVER 12 HOURS BEFORE...

DEFENDANTS’ PROOF DEMONSTRATED THE SNOW STORM WAS OVER 12 HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not demonstrate the applicability of the storm in progress rule in this ice and snow slip and fall case. Therefore defendants motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The climatological data submitted by the defendants showed that there was an accumulation of approximately seven inches of snow, which had ceased to fall by 8:00 p.m. on February 3, 2014, more than 12 hours prior to the accident, and that the temperature was 32 degrees when the storm stopped and dropped below freezing during the time prior to the happening of the accident. Further, the defendants submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff, who testified that the walkway from the hotel to the parking lot was clear while the parking lot was icy and had not been cleared by 9:00 a.m. on February 4, 2014, when the accident occurred. Casey-Bernstein v Leach & Powers, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01557, Second Dept 3-6-19

Similar issues and result in Yeung v Selfhelp (KIV) Assoc., L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 01558, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

You might also like
CRITERIA FOR REVEIW OF A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CONCISELY EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF NURSE WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT’S HOSPITAL; SHE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF ANY NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PATIENT’S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN HIS MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR A REBUILD OF A FIRE-DAMAGED, NON-CONFORMING HOME.
Appellant’s Running From Area Where Gunshots Were Heard and a Visible Bulge Under Appellant’s Clothing Provided Police With Reasonable Suspicion to Justify Stopping Appellant
AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED.
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY NAMING PLAINTIFF IN HER CAPACITY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HER HUSBAND’S ESTATE, WHERE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS ERRONEOUSLY BROUGHT IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID ON THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (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

DELIBERATE ACTS BY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY RESULTED IN THE DEFAULT, DEFENDANT’S... LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, SERVED THREE YEARS...