6 N.Y.3d 734 (2005)
A property owner is not liable for injuries sustained as a result of icy conditions during an ongoing storm, or for a reasonable time thereafter, and general awareness of wet conditions during inclement weather is insufficient to establish constructive notice of a specific dangerous condition.
Summary
The plaintiff, Solazzo, sued the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell on icy steps leading into a subway station. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the NYCTA, holding that the “storm in progress” doctrine applied. The Court reasoned that because it had been snowing, sleeting, and raining all day, and the steps were exposed to these conditions, the NYCTA could not be held liable. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the NYCTA’s general awareness of wet conditions constituted constructive notice of the specific icy condition.
Facts
On the day of the incident, it had been snowing, sleeting, and raining on and off. The steps leading down into the subway station were exposed to the weather. Solazzo slipped and fell on the icy steps, sustaining injuries. Solazzo then sued the NYCTA, alleging negligence in failing to maintain the steps in a safe condition.
Procedural History
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the NYCTA. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a property owner can be held liable for a plaintiff’s injuries sustained as a result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm, or for a reasonable time thereafter.
Holding
No, because a property owner 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. The Court also held that general awareness that the stairs and platforms become wet during inclement weather was insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition causing plaintiff’s injury.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the “storm in progress” doctrine, which provides that a property owner is not liable for injuries sustained as a result of icy conditions during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter. The Court reasoned that because it had been snowing, sleeting, and raining all day, and the steps were exposed to these conditions, the NYCTA could not be held liable. The Court cited Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381, 383 (1st Dept 1982), affd 57 NY2d 932 (1982), for the principle that liability is not imposed during an ongoing storm. The Court further stated that a “general awareness that the stairs and platforms become wet during inclement weather was insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition causing plaintiff’s injury”, citing Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969 (1994). This highlights that the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant had notice of the specific dangerous condition that caused the injury, not just a general awareness of potential hazards during bad weather. This case serves as an example of the application of the storm in progress doctrine, protecting property owners from liability when taking immediate remedial action is impractical due to ongoing weather conditions.