Sheryl Sanford Obtains Summary Judgment in Snow and Ice Case

In Vincent Licari et al. v. Brookside Meadows, LLC et al., Dutchess County Index No. 50229/18, plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against a property owner alleging a slip on ice that accumulated in a patched crack in front of his home during a “flash freeze” combination of sleet and rain. At plaintiff’s deposition, Sheryl Sanford was able to elicit testimony wherein plaintiff admitted that he did not trip on the patched crack, but rather, slipped on ice that was in the process of being cleared. This testimony coupled with meteorological evidence was used to support Defendants’ summary judgment motion based on the “storm in progress” defense. In opposition, plaintiff argued yet a third theory that the snow was “old” and that the storm in progress defense should not apply to sleet or rain. The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments and granted full dismissal to defendants based on the storm in progress defense, agreeing that plaintiff’s own testimony established that the ice (as opposed to an alleged structural defect) caused the accident.