Patricia Patterson v. 786 East 182 LLC et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability: slip-and-fall on snow/ice; application of the storm-in-progress doctrine.
Denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The denial of summary judgment; the appellate court granted defendants’ motion and directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendants made a prima facie showing that a winter storm was ongoing (supported by climatological data, a meteorologist’s affidavit, and the superintendent’s testimony), triggering the storm-in-progress doctrine. Plaintiff’s contrary testimony was conclusory, and there was no evidence defendants created or exacerbated the icy condition; speculation about inadequate snow removal was insufficient.
Background
Plaintiff, a tenant, alleged she slipped and fell on ice on the walkway in front of her apartment building. On the accident day, it had been raining and snowing. The building superintendent removed sleet and snow near the entrance and applied salt there. He testified he was in the process of salting the sidewalk in front of the building when he learned of plaintiff’s fall, and that sleet was falling at the time.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, in effect, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint arising from the slip-and-fall on ice.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law. The Appellate Division held that the storm-in-progress doctrine barred liability because a winter storm was ongoing when plaintiff fell. Defendants’ climatological data and meteorologist affidavit, corroborated by the superintendent’s testimony, established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff’s testimony that it was not snowing was conclusory and insufficient to create a triable issue, and she offered no evidence that defendants created or exacerbated the icy condition through their snow removal efforts. The court granted the motion and directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that during an active winter storm, property owners are not liable for failing to remedy snow/ice conditions until a reasonable time after the storm ends. Prima facie proof can be established through meteorological evidence and contemporaneous testimony. Plaintiffs must present nonconclusory evidence that the owner created or worsened the condition; speculation or generalized assertions of inadequate snow removal are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
In New York slip-and-fall cases involving snow or ice, defendants who document an ongoing storm with reliable meteorological proof and show no creation/exacerbation of the hazard are entitled to summary judgment under the storm-in-progress doctrine; plaintiffs need concrete, nonconclusory evidence to raise a triable issue.