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
Amendment to Notice of Claim to Add Second Hospital Should Have Been Allowed
COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER WHO ALLEGEDLY INJURED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A SUBCONTRACTOR WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLING THEM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Mortgagee in Possession Has a Duty to Care for the Property/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action, Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted, Explained
THE EMAIL EXCHANGE IN WHICH THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS AGREED TO DID NOT SATISFY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SELLER WAS FREE TO BACK OUT AND SEEK A HIGHER PRICE.
A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A PLEADING AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ANNEXED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION ESTABLISHED HE FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD, HE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE FALL WAS DUE TO INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED ON THAT GROUND (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 © 2025 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...