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
CONTRACTOR WHICH WAXED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP, WHICH INCLUDED PEACE OFFICERS AS OPPOSED TO POLICE OFFICERS, THE WARRANT WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL; THE PARTICIPATION OF PEACE OFFICERS IN THE SEARCH WAS LIMITED AND DID NOT INVALIDATE THE SEARCH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND IMPROPERLY RAISED AN ISSUE NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSEMENT OF RISK LEVEL POINTS WHICH WERE NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE OR THE BOARD VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (CPLR 213(4)) ESTOPPED PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED AND ADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE WIFE’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADULTERY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION, WHICH, IF PROVEN, WOULD HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE HUSBAND, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE HUSBAND AND THE WOMAN WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE WIFE’S ALLEGATIONS SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS DENYING ANY SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP; THE WIFE’S AFFIDAVIT WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON PROXIMITY–THE WOMAN WAS THE FAMILY’S BABYSITTER–AND WAS OTHERWISE UNSUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROVIDING AN UNREDACTED STATEMENT TO THE JURY BY MISTAKE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRED REVERSAL.

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...