Murphy v City Mini Storage LLC
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability involving a slip-and-fall on a sidewalk and application of New York's storm in progress doctrine.
The lower court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, concluding that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident and defendant therefore had no duty to remove snow or ice until a reasonable time after the storm ended.
Nothing was overturned; the Appellate Division affirmed the order.
The majority held that defendant established as a matter of law that it was lightly snowing at the time of the fall, the sidewalk showed fresh snow with only plaintiff's footprints, and the parties agreed that it had snowed overnight. Plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact that the storm had ended, that the icy condition preexisted the storm, or that defendant had sufficient time to remedy the condition.
Background
Plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk owned by defendant City Mini Storage LLC. After discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment based on the storm in progress doctrine, arguing that ongoing winter weather relieved it of any immediate duty to clear the sidewalk.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint under the storm in progress doctrine.
Appellate Division Reversal
No reversal occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that defendant met its prima facie burden through surveillance video and other proof showing snowfall at the time of the accident and overnight snow, and that plaintiff failed to raise a triable factual issue. Two justices dissented, reasoning that light snowfall and only a trace accumulation did not conclusively establish an ongoing storm.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that, in the Fourth Department, light snowfall at the time of an accident can be sufficient to invoke the storm in progress doctrine when supported by record evidence showing an ongoing weather event. It also shows that a defendant may satisfy its burden through surveillance footage and party admissions, and that a plaintiff opposing summary judgment must identify evidence that the storm had abated, that the condition preexisted the storm, or that the defendant had a reasonable time to address the hazard.
A property owner may obtain summary judgment in a snow-and-ice case where the record shows an ongoing storm at the time of the fall, even if the snowfall is light, unless the plaintiff can raise a factual dispute about whether the storm had ended or whether the dangerous condition existed independently of the storm.