1 No. 199 SSM 29
Michael J. Solazzo, Jr., et al.,
Appellants, v. New York City Transit Authority,
et al.,
Respondents.
2005 NY Int. 160
December 20, 2005
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Brian J. Isaac, for appellants. Submitted by Lawrence A. Silver, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed,
with costs.
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 ( see Valentine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 381,
383 [1st Dept 1982] affd , 57 NY2d 932). Here, it had been
snowing, sleeting and raining on and off all day and the steps
down into the subway were exposed to those weather conditions.
Thus, summary judgment was properly granted in defendants' favor.
Plaintiffs argue that the ongoing storm doctrine should
not apply because his injury was caused by a recurring hazardous
condition of which NYCTA was aware. 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 ( see Piacquadio v Recine
Realty Corp., , 84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]).