Rashawn Holmes v 215 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability involving a slip-and-fall on ice during snowfall and application of the storm in progress rule [a property owner is generally not responsible for accidents caused by accumulating snow or ice until a reasonable time after the storm ends to address the hazard].
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the defendants summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint, holding that the storm in progress rule barred the claim.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment and the underlying order granting summary judgment to the defendants, denied the motion, and reinstated the amended complaint.
The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden because their own evidence raised triable issues of fact as to whether the ice existed before the storm and whether they had constructive notice of it.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he slipped and fell on ice while descending vaulted stairs leading from the sidewalk to the cellar of a Brooklyn property owned by 215 Knickerbocker, LLC, managed by L Rose Realty, Inc., and leased to Superette BK, LLC. Snow was undisputedly falling at the time of the accident. The defendants sought summary judgment based on the storm in progress rule.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, concluding that the ongoing snowfall relieved the defendants of liability under the storm in progress rule.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the defendants did not establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants' submissions, including the plaintiff's deposition testimony and a meteorologist's affirmation, created factual issues as to whether the ice condition predated the storm and whether the defendants had constructive notice. Because the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing, the motion should have been denied regardless of the plaintiff's opposition.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that in New York snow-and-ice cases, defendants invoking the storm in progress rule must still eliminate factual questions about whether the dangerous ice condition existed before the storm began and whether they had notice of it. If a defendant's own proof leaves those issues unresolved, summary judgment is improper.
An ongoing storm does not automatically defeat a slip-and-fall claim; property owners and related defendants must first show that the specific icy condition was caused solely by the storm and was not a preexisting hazard of which they had actual or constructive notice.