Archie v Cunningham Associates, L.P.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability arising from a slip-and-fall on ice at a residential building during winter weather, specifically application of New York's storm in progress doctrine.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion dismissing the amended complaint.
The defendants established that a storm was ongoing when the plaintiff fell and that their salting or ice-melt efforts did not create or worsen the icy condition. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants' snow or ice removal efforts created a hazard or exacerbated a natural condition.
Background
On February 4, 2022, at about 8:47 p.m., Keyonna Archie allegedly slipped and fell on ice on a walkway at a residential building owned by Cunningham Associates, L.P. and managed by Wen Management Corp. (Wen). She sued to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging the defendants were responsible for the icy condition.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing the personal injury action to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and granted summary judgment to the defendants. Relying on deposition testimony, employee testimony, an expert meteorologist's affidavit, and certified climatological data, the court held that the storm in progress doctrine applied because precipitation was ongoing at the time of the accident. The court further held that the defendants' preventative salting or ice-melt measures were not shown to have created a dangerous condition or worsened the natural hazard.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that under the storm in progress doctrine, a property owner generally has no duty to remove snow or ice while a storm is still ongoing or for a reasonable time afterward. It also confirms that undertaking snow or ice treatment during a storm does not alone create liability; a plaintiff must show that the defendant's efforts affirmatively created or exacerbated the hazard.
When a slip-and-fall occurs during an ongoing storm, a defendant can obtain summary judgment by showing the storm was in progress and that any snow or ice treatment did not make conditions worse. A plaintiff must present evidence of hazard creation or exacerbation, not merely incomplete snow or ice removal.