You are here: / / STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE...

STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined defendant Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The storm in progress rule did not apply because the precipitation stopped 12 hours before the fall, and the temperature dipped below freezing 10 hours before the fall:

Home Depot failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that there was a storm in progress at the time of the injured plaintiff’s accident or that it did not have a reasonable opportunity after the cessation of the storm to remedy the allegedly dangerous condition … . The climatological data submitted by Home Depot showed that there was an accumulation of about three inches of snow, which had ceased to fall by 7:00 p.m. on January 18, 2004, about 12 hours prior to the accident, and that the temperature dropped to below freezing by 9:00 p.m., about 10 hours prior to the accident, and remained below freezing through the time of the accident. Thus, Home Depot failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have a reasonable time to ameliorate the snow and ice condition in the parking lot … . Morris v Home Depot USA, 2017 NY Slip Op 05717, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)/STORM IN PROGRESS (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
AGGRIEVED CANDIDATE NOT BOUND BY STATUTORY DEADLINES FOR FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO DESIGNATING PETITIONS, RESPONDENT HAD ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE OBJECTIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEEMED THE OBJECTIONS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BUS COMPANY STEMMING FROM A FIGHT INSTIGATED BY A STUDENT ON THE BUS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THEATER MANAGER WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD, HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED DEALING WITH UNRULY PATRONS AND KEEPING THE PREMISES SAFE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREATENED A PATRON WITH A PELLET GUN; THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE THEATER WAS LIABLE FOR THE MANAGER’S ACTIONS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE INSURER DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM UNTIL 23 MONTHS AFTER THE CAR ACCIDENT, IT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY AND DID NOT COMMENCE A TIMELY INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIM; THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
IN AN EFFORT TO CONVINCE THE COURT TO GRANT THEIR REQUEST FOR A COMPETENCY HEARING BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S REJECTION OF A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS REVEALED CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE ATTEMPTING TO HELP THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS BECAME WITNESSES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER WAS LIABLE FOR A LATENT DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE... PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION...