In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reversed a lower court's decision regarding a personal injury case involving a slip-and-fall accident. The court's decision affects the plaintiff, Rashawn Holmes, who alleged he sustained injuries after slipping on ice while descending stairs owned by the defendant, 215 Knickerbocker, LLC. This case, filed under docket number 2025-02439, highlights the complexities of property owner liability during winter weather conditions.
The case began when Holmes slipped and fell on ice while using the stairs leading from the sidewalk to the cellar of a property managed by 215 Knickerbocker, LLC, in Brooklyn. At the time of the incident, snow was actively falling, prompting the defendants to argue that they should not be held liable due to the “storm in progress” rule. This legal principle protects property owners from liability for accidents caused by snow or ice accumulation while a storm is ongoing.
Holmes initiated legal action to recover damages for his injuries, claiming that the icy condition on the stairs existed before the snowfall began. The defendants, including 215 Knickerbocker, LLC, L Rose Realty, Inc., and Superette BK, LLC, sought summary judgment to dismiss the case, asserting that they had no responsibility for the icy conditions due to the ongoing storm. The Supreme Court of Kings County initially ruled in favor of the defendants, leading to Holmes' appeal.
The Appellate Division's ruling, issued on August 5, 2026, reversed the lower court's decision. The judges, including Mark C. Dillon, Deborah A. Dowling, Carl J. Landicino, and James P. McCormack, determined that the defendants had failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to grant summary judgment. The court stated, "The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law." This means that the defendants did not provide sufficient evidence to prove they were not liable for the icy conditions that led to Holmes' fall.
The judges noted that the defendants' evidence, which included the plaintiff's deposition and a meteorologist's affirmation, raised questions about whether the icy condition existed before the storm started. The court emphasized that the presence of a storm does not automatically absolve property owners of responsibility for conditions that may have existed prior to the storm.
In their opinion, the judges pointed out, "Under the so-called 'storm in progress' rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm." This ruling clarifies that property owners must still address hazardous conditions that existed before a storm, even if snow is falling at the time of an accident.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both property owners and individuals who may suffer injuries due to slip-and-fall accidents. The decision reinforces that property owners cannot simply rely on the storm in progress rule to avoid liability. They must actively manage and address any hazardous conditions that may have existed prior to a storm.
This ruling may lead to more personal injury cases being pursued by individuals who believe they were injured due to negligence on the part of property owners during winter weather. It sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for property owners to be vigilant about maintaining safe conditions, regardless of weather circumstances.
Looking ahead, the defendants in this case may consider appealing the Appellate Division's decision to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence future decisions regarding property owner liability in similar slip-and-fall cases.