A New York appellate court upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a slip and fall lawsuit against City Mini Storage LLC. The ruling, made on July 24, 2026, affects individuals who may seek damages for injuries sustained on properties during winter weather conditions. The case highlights the legal principles surrounding property owners' responsibilities during snowstorms.
The plaintiff, Maureen Murphy, filed a lawsuit after she allegedly slipped and fell on a sidewalk owned by City Mini Storage. The incident occurred during a snowstorm, leading to a dispute over whether the company was liable for her injuries. The case was filed in Ontario County and eventually reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York under docket number 420 CA 25-00450.
The dispute centered on the storm in progress doctrine, which states that property owners are not liable for injuries caused by snow or ice until a reasonable time has passed after a storm. Murphy's legal team argued that the company failed to maintain safe conditions on its property, while City Mini Storage contended that it was not responsible due to the ongoing storm at the time of the accident.
The Appellate Division reviewed the case after the Supreme Court granted City Mini Storage's motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing Murphy's complaint. The court found that the defendant met its burden of proving that a storm was in progress at the time of the incident. The ruling stated, "A defendant seeking to avail itself of the storm in progress doctrine meets its prima facie burden by establishing as a matter of law that there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident."
The court also noted that the surveillance video submitted by City Mini Storage showed that it was lightly snowing when Murphy fell. The video depicted her walking along the sidewalk just before the incident, leaving the only visible footprints in the snow. The court emphasized that evidence of light snow does not negate the applicability of the storm in progress doctrine.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the lower court's decision without costs, stating, "defendant met its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident and, thus, that it had no duty to remove the snow [or] ice until a reasonable time had elapsed after cessation of the storm." The judges on the panel included Lindley, Curran, Ogden, Nowak, and Delconte.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the storm in progress doctrine, which protects property owners from liability during ongoing adverse weather conditions. It underscores the importance of establishing whether a storm is truly in progress at the time of an accident when determining liability for slip and fall cases.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond this specific case. It clarifies the responsibilities of property owners during winter weather and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. Individuals who suffer injuries due to slip and fall incidents during snowstorms may find it more challenging to pursue claims against property owners, given the court's interpretation of the storm in progress doctrine.
As for what lies ahead, it remains to be seen whether Murphy will appeal this decision. The court's ruling does not preclude the possibility of further legal action. However, details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential appeals.