You are here: / / RARE CASE WHERE EVIDENCE OF A ROUTINE PROCEDURE FOR KEEPING A PARKING LOT...
,

RARE CASE WHERE EVIDENCE OF A ROUTINE PROCEDURE FOR KEEPING A PARKING LOT FREE OF ICE AND SNOW, COMBINED WITH PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department held that evidence of a routine procedure for keeping the parking lot free of ice and snow, together with the plaintiff’s testimony she did not see any ice on the parking lot when she arrived at work on the day of the fall, supported summary judgment in defendants’ favor in this slip and fall case:

The plaintiff testified that she worked at the premises five days a week, typically from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that she either came to the premises by car pool or driving herself. The plaintiff indicated that she had not seen any runoff of melting snow or ice from snow piles in the parking lot to the area where she allegedly fell prior to or on the date of the accident. The plaintiff further testified that during the morning of January 20, 2011, she parked her car at the premises and did not notice any ice on the parking lot surface at that time. The plaintiff indicated that when she left work shortly after 6:00 p.m., she “look[ed] down at the ground” while walking to her car, and she did not see the ice on which she slipped, which she described as being clear, until after she fell. Further, Mauricio Pacheco, a maintenance worker for [defendant] RXR, testified that he checked the parking lot every morning, and if any ice was present, he would have salted the area. Pacheco indicated that if the temperature dropped below freezing or there was any precipitation later in the day, he would have again checked the parking lot for ice. Pacheco also testified that lighting for the parking lot turned on automatically at 6:00 p.m., and that he checked to make sure the lighting was working every morning. Zimmer v County of Suffolk, 2021 NY Slip Op 00331, Second Dept 1-20-21

 

You might also like
THE CRITERIA FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION BASED UPON A TORT COMMITTED “WITHIN THE STATE” CLARIFIED; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE OUT-OF-STATE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, MEMBERS OF AN LLC WHICH SOLD N95 MASKS TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THE QUALITY OF THE MASKS WAS MISREPRESENTED IN AN EMAIL TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which Served Plaintiff’s Decedent, Even Though the Alcohol Served at the First Bar Would Have Metabolized by the Time of the Accident Had Plaintiff’s Decedent Not Continued to Drink at the Second Bar
THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CHANGED WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED PEOPLE V PAYNE, BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HEARD DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION AND SHOULD HAVE REVERSED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AND DISMISSED THE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE NATURE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WAS PROBATIVE OF HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS’ VAN RAN OVER INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FOOT; DEFENDANTS ALLEGED INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE FELL OFF HER BICYCLE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A UNIFIED TRIAL ON LIABILITY AND DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ALLOWING A VETERINARIAN’S OFFICE TO BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE WHEN A PATRON WAS BITTEN BY A DOG IN THE WAITING ROOM DID NOT EXTEND TO A RESTAURANT OWNER WHO ALLOWS PATRONS TO BRING THEIR LEASHED DOGS TO THE RESTAURANT; THE STRICT LIABILITY “NOTICE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES” STANDARD APPLIED TO THE RESTAURANT OWNER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED (1) THE PROTRUDING PIPE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, (2) THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, AND (3) THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS DID NOT APPLY; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO SERVE A CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS, WHICH APPARENTLY RESULTED IN THE PLAINTIFFS NOT ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ FULLY SUBMITTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH MUST BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim

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

PROOF OF A REGULAR SNOW REMOVAL ROUTINE IS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK... THE THREAT MADE BY DEFENDANT WAS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT...