You are here: / / THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO CLEAR ICE AND SNOW AND CERTAIN BUILDING...
,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO CLEAR ICE AND SNOW AND CERTAIN BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL; THE “STORM IN PROGRESS” RULE ONLY NEGATED THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO CLEAR THE ICE AND SNOW; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS WERE INAPPLICABLE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the “storm in progress” applied to this slip and fall because it was snowing at the time, summary judgment should not have been awarded to defendants. In addition to alleging the negligent failure to clear ice and snow, the complaint alleged the ramp where plaintiff fell violated certain provision of the NYC Building Code. The defendants did not demonstrate the code did not apply. Because there can be more than one proximate cause  the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment:

… “[T]here can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . Although there is no disagreement that the snow and ice from the storm was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall, Avenue L and the Sesame defendants each failed to establish, prima facie, that the provisions of the 1968, 2008, and 2014 New York City Building Codes relied upon by the plaintiff were inapplicable and that an alleged violation of those provisions did not proximately cause the plaintiff to fall … . Wechsler v Ave. L., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00347, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff conceded it was snowing when she slipped and fell, triggering the “storm in progress” rule which let defendants off the hook for any failure to clear ice and snow. But the plaintiff also alleged certain building code violations caused her fall. The defendants did not demonstrate the code was inapplicable so they were not entitled to summary judgment. There can be more than one proximate cause of a slip and fall.

 

You might also like
CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
1941 AND 1953 DEEDS CREATED THE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER WHICH COULD BE ASSIGNED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT SUPPLY THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHEN ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN JOINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF STANDING PURSUANT TO A MERGER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE INMATE LACKED THE CAPACITY TO MAKE A REASONED DECISION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TREATMENT FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA, PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WAS NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE INMATE’S NEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
No Negligence In School District’s, School’s and Attending Nurse’s Care of Child Who Died After Suffering an Allergic Reaction in School

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

HERE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S ESTATE BROUGHT... THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE...