You are here: / / THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO WATER INSIDE A BUILDING TRACKED...
,

THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO WATER INSIDE A BUILDING TRACKED IN DURING A RAIN STORM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, clarified and reiterated the principle that the storm-in-progress rule does not apply to tracked-in water inside a building:

… [T]his Court has not expanded the storm in progress rule to include hazards that have been tracked-in to interior spaces … , and we decline [defendant property owner’s] invitation to do so. A property owner’s efforts to remove tracked-in hazards during an ongoing storm are simply not subject to the same exigencies as when removing exterior hazards. In other words, removing tracked-in hazards during an ongoing storm is not a fruitless endeavor, and therefore the suspension of a property owner’s duty of care with respect to such hazards is not justified.

Rather, tracked-in conditions from a storm in progress are to be treated by the principles governing premises liability generally … . Rowland v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 2026 NY Slip Op 02861, Second Dept 5-6-26

Practice Point: The storm-in-progress rule does not apply to water inside a building tracked in during a rain storm.​

 

You might also like
Prosecution Failed to Prove the Requisite Intent and Materiality in a Perjury Case
Child Properly Found to Be a Vulnerable Witness and Properly Allowed to Testify Outside the Presence of the Defendant in a Sexual -Offense Trial
Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable to an Injured Passenger, Here the Passenger Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About the Company’s Notice of a Potential Problem
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR DEFENDANT’S STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT). ​
Plaintiff Who Fell From Scaffolding Which Did Not Have Safety Rails Entitled to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action
DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AND THE INVENTORY SEARCH WERE LAWFUL; SEIZED EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER DURING THE SCHOOL DAY OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT UNDER BOTH RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF 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

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SIDEWALK DEFECT... NEW YORK’S “TOLLING” PROVISION FOR PREDICATE FELONIES REQUIRES...