A New York appellate court has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a slip-and-fall lawsuit against property owners Christina Lombardino and the Lombardino Family Trust. The ruling, made on June 17, 2026, addresses the legal responsibilities of property owners regarding icy conditions on their premises. This decision affects personal injury claims related to slip-and-fall accidents, especially those occurring during winter weather.

The case, Rakhmanova v. Lombardino (Docket No. 2024-11431), arose from an incident where the plaintiff, Lyuba Rakhmanova, allegedly slipped and fell on ice on a sidewalk outside the defendants' property on February 18, 2021. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for liability in slip-and-fall cases, particularly under conditions of inclement weather.

Background

Lyuba Rakhmanova filed the lawsuit against Christina Lombardino and the Lombardino Family Trust after she suffered injuries from her fall. The incident occurred at around 6:50 p.m. on a day when weather conditions were severe, with temperatures below freezing and significant precipitation. Rakhmanova sought damages for her injuries, claiming that the property owners were negligent in maintaining the sidewalk.

The defendants initially responded by filing a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against them. However, they did not appear at the scheduled court date for the motion, leading to their motion being marked off the active calendar. Subsequently, the defendants sought to vacate their default for failing to appear and to restore their motion to the active calendar. This request was granted by the lower court, prompting Rakhmanova to appeal the decision.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in favor of the defendants, affirming the lower court's decision. The judges involved in the ruling were Betsy Barros, Cheryl E. Chambers, Lillian Wan, and Susan Quirk. The court found that the defendants provided a credible explanation for their failure to appear, citing a law office failure as the reason.

In its opinion, the court stated, "A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing on the return date of a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious cause of action or defense." The court concluded that the defendants had met this burden and that their motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

The court also addressed the legal standards for slip-and-fall cases, noting that property owners are typically held liable only if they created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. The ruling emphasized the "storm in progress doctrine," which protects property owners from liability for injuries occurring during ongoing storms or for a reasonable time afterward. The court stated, "Under the storm in progress doctrine, a landowner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiff's injuries sustained as the result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for personal injury claims related to slip-and-fall accidents, particularly in winter weather conditions. It reinforces the legal protections afforded to property owners when adverse weather conditions contribute to accidents. The decision clarifies that property owners may not be held liable if they can demonstrate that a storm was ongoing at the time of the incident, as was the case here.

The court's decision also highlights the importance of proper legal representation and the need for parties to adhere to court schedules. By granting the defendants' motion to restore their case, the court emphasized the necessity of providing a reasonable excuse for missing court appearances. This ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, as it sets a precedent for evaluating liability in slip-and-fall cases during inclement weather.

What's Next

The plaintiff, Rakhmanova, has the option to appeal this ruling to a higher court if she chooses. However, details regarding any related cases or further actions were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may impact future slip-and-fall lawsuits, particularly those involving icy conditions.