What Is the Continuing Storm Doctrine in NY?
- Alex Maltese
- Mar 31
- 6 min read
Slippery conditions are common in New York, especially during or after a winter storm. From icy sidewalks to snow-covered parking lots, New York law has guidelines in place that govern slip and fall accidents.
One of the first things that might come up is the continuing storm doctrine, or storm in progress doctrine. It is the property owner's duty to clear snow, ice, etc, but they have a reasonable period to do so. Because of this, the storm in progress defense is often used by property owners to argue that they aren't responsible for injuries that occur in inclement weather.
For those in Nassau and Suffolk Counties who have sustained serious injuries from a slip and fall, it's important to understand how this doctrine works, how a plaintiff's complaint is handled, and how the timing of the storm and when the plaintiff slipped can have a very real effect on a case and whether or not compensation is possible.
Here is a full and detailed explanation of the continuing storm doctrine in New York and when snow and ice removal matters in a slip-and-fall case.
The Legal Foundation of the Continuing Storm Doctrine - New York Law
New York premises liability law governs these cases, and in premises liability cases, there are certain things that courts look at. First, certain people have a legal duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions on their property, including abutting property owners, in most cases. However, courts look at when the plaintiff's accident occurred, and if it was during an active snow or ice storm, it's often impractical, and sometimes totally impossible, to clear snow and ice.
The continuing storm doctrine says that: "A property owner generally has no duty to remove snow or ice until a reasonable time has passed after the storm has ended."
New York courts have consistently applied this to cases when a plaintiff's fall occurred during an active storm. This includes in the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state.
In other words, the property owner might not be held liable if there was a storm occurring at the time of the alleged incident.
Why the Storm in Progress Doctrine Exists
The doctrine is based on fairness and practicality. During an active snowstorm, weather patterns might make it impossible to clear snow, ice, or sleet and keep it from accumulating. Surfaces can quickly re-freeze, and any efforts to keep the area clear could be in vain, as more snow will quickly cover the area that was just cleared.
In the past, courts noted one thing in successful cases -- when the storm ended.
When Does a Snow and Ice Storm “End”?
When we look back at court cases where the plaintiff testified they slipped and were injured and the defendant uses the continuing storm in progress defense, we can see time and time again that courts determine when the storm ends to judge whether or not the property owner was liable.
Courts look at the following:
Certified weather reports
Certified weather data
Eyewitness testimony
Timing of snowfall or freezing rain
Even if a storm stops for a couple of hours, and then continues, it doesn't automatically mean that the storm ended and that the property owner had time to clear the snow and ice. If the storm system is active and more snow or ice is expected, courts may still say that the continuing storm doctrine applies.
On Long Island, where coastal weather systems can produce fluctuating conditions, these timing issues are especially important. They are some common injuries from winter accidents.
What Is a “Reasonable Time” After the Storm?
Once a storm ends, the property owner has a "reasonable time" to address the hazardous conditions. However, there is no fixed number of hours. Instead, courts will look at things like the severity of the storm, how much snow or ice fell, the time of day, the type of property, and the resources that were available to the property owner.
For example:
A commercial shopping center with a lot of foot traffic is often expected to take care of the hazardous conditions more quickly than a private homeowner.
A storm that ends in the middle of the night often allows for snow removal in the morning before the business opens, and not in the middle of the night when the storm ended.
Usually, this is all decided on a case-by-base basis.
Exceptions to the Continuing Storm Doctrine
Thought the doctrine does offer protection to property owners, there are some exceptions that anyone involved in these cases should know about:
1. Pre-Existing Hazard
If ice or snow was present before the storm began and was not addressed, the property owner could be found liable. For instance, if there is old ice under fresh snow or if there is untreated black ice from snow or ice melting and then refreezing.
This doctrine doesn't help if there was negligence prior to the most current storm.
2. Negligent Snow Removal
If the property owner attempts to remove the snow during the storm but does this in a negligent way, they can still be found to be liable. Here's some examples:
Pushing or piling snow into areas where it predictably melts and refreezes
Blocking drainage paths
Creating uneven or hazardous walking surfaces
Once a property owner starts the process of snow removal, they must do so reasonably.
3. Indoor or Covered Areas
The doctrine also generally applies to outdoor accumulation from natural precipitation.
It may not apply to:
Indoor entryways
Parking garages
Areas where melting snow is tracked inside and allowed to accumulate
Property owners still have a duty to keep interior premises safe.
How the Doctrine Affects Slip-and-Fall Cases on Long Island
Here on Long Island, these cases often are based on the precise timing of the storm and the actions of the property owner. Insurance companies often try to say that the storm was ongoing and that the property owner didn't have time to clear the snow.
A personal injury attorney, however, may fight this defense with official weather reports, surveillance footage, maintenance logs, witness statements, and weather experts.
Burden of Proof in Continuing Storm Cases
In most of these cases, the injured person must show that:
A dangerous condition was present
The property owner knew about it or should have known about it, and
The property owner didn't take care of it within a reasonable amount of time.
With the continuing storm doctrine in place, the property owner can argue that they had no duty because the storm was ongoing. On the other hand, if an accident lawyer in Long Island can prove that the storm had ended and a reasonable amount of time had passed, there could be a case, and a win, for the plaintiff.
Commercial vs. Residential Properties
The doctrine applies to both residential and commercial properties, but there are different expectations.
It's often understood that commercial property owners have snow removal contracts in place, that they anticipate heavy foot traffic, and that they are often held to a higher standard of response.
For residential homeowners, however, they may have more limited resource and may be given more time to take care of the situation.
However, once the courts have determined that a reasonable period of time has passed, a lawsuit could move forward.
Comparative Negligence in New York
New York uses a comparative negligence rule in these cases. This means that even if a property owner is found to be partially liable, the injured person could also be partially at fault. For instance, if they were wearing sandals in the snow and slipped, that's partially their fault for not wearing the proper footwear for the conditions.
It's important to note that the comparative negligence rule doesn't eliminate a claim - it only reduces the damages.
Common Defense Strategies in Continuing Storm Cases
Insurance companies often argue about:
Ongoing precipitation at time of fall
Insufficient time to take care of the snow or ice
Lack of notice
Storm resurgence shortly after a lull in the action
These defenses often rely heavily on weather data, so a detailed examination and presenting proof is essential.
Why Timing Evidence Is So Important
Because the continuing storm doctrine depends so heavily on the timing of the storm, oftentimes minute-by-minute documentation is used.
Evidence may include:
National Weather Service data
Local airport meteorological records
Certified weather expert reports
Time-stamped video
On Long Island, where coastal systems can produce rapid changes, these details matter.
How the Law Office of Carl Maltese Assists Long Island Injury Victims
Slip-and-fall cases involving snow and ice are rarely straightforward. The continuing storm doctrine is one of the most common — and most misunderstood — defenses in New York.
The Law Office of Carl Maltese assists clients by:
Investigating precise weather conditions and determining if an ongoing storm was in progress
Reviewing maintenance and plowing records
Consulting meteorological experts when necessary
Challenging improper reliance on the continuing storm defense
Navigating municipal notice requirements
Early investigation is critical because surveillance footage and maintenance logs can disappear quickly.
Get a Free Consultation for Your Slip and Fall Case
If you were injured in a slip-and-fall accident during winter weather on Long Island, the timing of the storm — not just the existence of ice — may determine your legal rights.
Understanding how the continuing storm doctrine applies to your case is the first step toward evaluating whether you may pursue compensation.
Reach out to the Law Office of Carl Maltese for a free consultation to determine if you have a case.