You are here: / / THE ICY CONDITION WAS CREATED BY “POCKETS OF FREEZING RAIN”...
,

THE ICY CONDITION WAS CREATED BY “POCKETS OF FREEZING RAIN” FROM MIDNIGHT TO 3:45 AM; THERE WAS NO “STORM;” THE “STORM-IN-PROGRESS” DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the nonjury verdict in the Court of Claims in this parking-lot slip and fall cause, over a dissent, determined the defendant state had actual and constructive knowledge of the icy condition and the storm-in-progress doctrine did not apply:

​The evidence establishes that defendant had actual notice of the icy conditions caused by the pockets of freezing rain and called in an employee to take appropriate measures to correct the dangerous condition by implementing defendant’s usual precautions of sanding/salting all paved areas accessible to the sander trucks. Even assuming that the record was insufficient to establish actual notice, we are satisfied that defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition in the location of claimant’s slip and fall. Based on the expert’s testimony of icy conditions forming through 3:45 a.m., defendant should have been aware of the slippery conditions on untreated surfaces between approximately 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., the time when defendant’s employee was performing “multiple” salting and sanding passes on the facility’s roads for “safety,” approximately five to seven hours before claimant’s fall, which is a sufficient time to establish constructive notice … . * * *

… [T]he event in question amounted to “pockets of freezing rain” that fell from approximately midnight until 3:45 a.m. and caused a glaze of ice measuring .05 to 0.1 inches. Defendant begs the question when it immediately argues that it is entitled to a “reasonable period of time” from 3:45 a.m. to address the condition. The threshold question is the applicability of the doctrine in the first instance. While it may be true that there is no need to establish the existence of a major winter event in order to apply the doctrine, it is equally true that there must be some sort of ongoing hazardous weather condition, i.e., a “storm” that amounts to more than an “appreciable accumulation” … . The storm in progress doctrine is not to be applied whenever any type of inclement weather exists and, given the unrefuted testimony of claimant’s expert meteorologist, it has no place in this litigation. Powers v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 01833, Third Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: In order for the storm-in-progress doctrine to be applicable, there must have been a “storm.” Here “pockets of freezing rain” did not constitute a “storm.”

 

You might also like
Judge’s Failure to Apply the “Prejudice versus Probative” Balancing Test to Evidence of Uncharged Bad Acts and Crimes, Combined with the Judge’s Failure to Give the Jury Limiting Instructions About How Such Evidence is to Be Considered by Them, Required Reversal of Defendant’s Conviction
CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLATE REVIEW, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
MUSIC TEACHERS ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
CLAIMANT ACTOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED, DENIAL OF CLAIM AFFIRMED.
Claimant Was an Employee of a Cleaning and Janitorial Service

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

PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO... THE LANDLORD DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TENANT TO PREVENT AN ASSAULT BY ANOTHER...