In Holmes v. 215 Knickerbocker, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04844 (Decided August 5, 2026), New York’s Appellate Division reversed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment that had dismissed a personal injury action arising from a fall on ice. The lower court had accepted the defendants’ argument that the “storm in progress” rule barred the claim. The Appellate Division disagreed, reinstating the plaintiff’s amended complaint and clarifying that the rule does not automatically shield a property owner when snow is falling at the time of an accident.

The plaintiff alleged that they slipped and fell on ice while descending vaulted stairs leading from the sidewalk to the cellar of a Brooklyn property. The defendants included the property owner, the company that managed the premises, and the commercial tenant. It was undisputed that snow was falling when the plaintiff fell. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the “storm in progress” rule applied, and the Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

In a snow or ice case, a defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. A defendant may satisfy that burden by presenting evidence that a storm was in progress when the plaintiff fell. Under the “storm in progress” rule, a property owner is generally not held responsible for accidents caused by the accumulation of snow and ice until a reasonable period has passed after the storm ends, allowing the owner an opportunity to address the hazard.

The Appellate Division held the defendants failed to meet their initial burden. The materials they submitted, which included the plaintiff’s deposition transcript and an affirmation from a meteorologist, raised factual questions on two critical points: whether the ice on which the plaintiff fell existed before the storm was in progress, and whether the defendants had constructive notice of that condition. Because the defendants did not establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion should have been denied regardless of the strength of the plaintiff’s opposition papers. The judgment was reversed, the motion was denied, and the amended complaint was reinstated.

This decision highlights an important principle for slip and fall claims in New York. The “storm in progress “rule is a defense that defendants must support with evidence, and its mere invocation does not end a case. If a hazardous icy condition existed before the storm began, the rule may not protect the property owner, and constructive notice remains a central issue. Evidence such as weather data, photographs, and testimony about the condition of the premises before and during the storm can be significant, and responsibility may extend to more than one party, including owners, property managers, and tenants.

Giulia R. Marino, Esq.