Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Brittani RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, New York City Transit Authority, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Tsai, J.), entered September 5, 2024, which granted the motion of defendants New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when she slipped and fell on snow or ice while walking down the subway stairs. Defendants submitted transcripts of plaintiff's testimony and weather reports, which demonstrated that there was a storm in progress at the time of plaintiff's accident (see Pippo v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 303, 304, 842 N.Y.S.2d 367 [1st Dept. 2007]).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants' snow removal efforts created or exacerbated a hazardous condition. The court properly concluded that the opinions of plaintiff's experts concerning the sufficiency of defendants' snow removal efforts and the origin of the allegedly dangerous condition were too speculative to raise an issue of fact (see Mitchell v. Davidson, 164 A.D.3d 1160, 83 N.Y.S.3d 453 [1st Dept. 2018]; Rivas v. New York City Hous. Auth., 140 A.D.3d 580, 581, 34 N.Y.S.3d 443 [1st Dept. 2016]). Specifically, the expert report failed to explain how clearing the steps and applying the salt-sand mixture created a more slippery condition than would have existed had defendants simply taken no action during the storm. The report did not specify what amount of salt would have been sufficient and how frequently it should have been applied to prevent melted snow from refreezing. Finally, the report suggests that defendants' efforts created a slippery layer of snow or ice that was later concealed by continuing snowfall, but there is no evidence in the record to support this assertion, particularly where plaintiff herself described the snow on the stairs as slushy, icy, dirty, and walked on.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 5617
Decided: January 15, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)