Premises Liability, Slip, Trip & Fall

Duty of care depends on why you were on the property

New York law generally imposes a duty on landowners to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition for anyone lawfully present, whether an invitee (customer, tenant, guest), a licensee (social visitor), or, in limited circumstances, even a trespasser. Since the landmark case Basso v. Miller, New York has largely moved away from rigid distinctions between these categories, focusing instead on foreseeability and reasonable care under the circumstances.

That said, the scope of the duty still varies. A store owner must actively inspect for hazards customers might encounter, while a homeowner's duty to a social guest is generally to warn of known dangers that are not obvious. Understanding which duty applies shapes how we build the case from the first records request.

The notice requirement: actual and constructive

A property owner is not automatically liable just because a hazard existed. You must show the owner had actual notice (they knew about the specific hazard) or constructive notice (the hazard existed long enough, and was visible enough, that a reasonable inspection would have found it). This is the single most litigated issue in slip-and-fall cases.

Constructive notice under New York case law, including Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, generally requires showing the defect was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the owner to discover and remedy it. This is why maintenance logs, sweep sheets, prior complaints, and surveillance footage are the core evidence in these cases, and why we send preservation letters within days of being retained.

• Actual notice: owner knew about the specific hazard
• Constructive notice: hazard was visible long enough to discover
• Recurring condition doctrine can substitute for specific notice
• Video and maintenance logs are the most powerful evidence

New York City's unique sidewalk liability rules

Under New York City Administrative Code § 7-210, the abutting property owner, not the City, is generally responsible for maintaining the sidewalk in front of their property, including snow and ice removal, and can be held liable for injuries caused by defects. Owner-occupied one, two, and three-family homes used exclusively for residential purposes are typically exempt, leaving the City responsible for those sidewalks instead.

This distinction matters enormously for who you sue and what deadlines apply. If the City remains responsible, a notice of claim within 90 days is mandatory. If a commercial property or larger residential building is the responsible party, the standard three-year statute of limitations generally applies, though the analysis always requires confirming the exact ownership and use of the property.

Snow and ice claims have their own rules

New York's 'storm in progress' doctrine generally shields property owners from liability for snow and ice accumulation while a storm is actively occurring, giving them a reasonable time after the storm ends to clear walkways. That reasonable time is fact-specific and frequently disputed, and weather records, timestamps, and witness accounts of when the storm actually ended are critical.

Once a reasonable period has passed, or if the owner's own snow removal efforts created or worsened a hazard, such as refreezing from improper shoveling, liability can attach even during otherwise wintry conditions. We regularly retain meteorology experts to establish the storm's actual end time in contested cases.

Comparative negligence in fall cases

New York's pure comparative negligence rule (CPLR § 1411) applies fully to premises cases. Insurers frequently argue you weren't watching where you were walking, were wearing inappropriate footwear, or ignored a warning sign, specifically to inflate your assigned percentage of fault.

A missing or inadequate warning sign, poor lighting, or a hazard placed somewhere pedestrians would not expect it can all undercut a comparative fault argument. We document the scene, lighting conditions, and any warning signage (or lack of it) as early as possible.

What premises liability cases are actually worth

Value depends on the severity and permanence of the injury, not the type of hazard. A hip fracture from a icy sidewalk, a herniated disc from a store fall, or a traumatic brain injury from a fall down poorly-lit stairs can carry six or seven figure value when the injury and lost earning capacity are properly documented with medical experts and, in serious cases, a life-care planner.

Recoverable damages include past and future medical expenses, lost wages and diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, and permanent disability or disfigurement. Cases involving surgery, fusion, or joint replacement generally carry significantly higher value than soft-tissue-only injuries, which is why aggressive early medical treatment and follow-up matters to the ultimate recovery.

What property owners and their insurers will argue

Expect the defense to argue lack of notice ('we didn't know about it'), open-and-obvious conditions that a plaintiff should have avoided, storm-in-progress for weather cases, and comparative fault based on footwear, distraction, or failure to use a handrail. Each defense has a standard evidentiary answer, and building the file to anticipate them from the outset is what prevents a low initial offer from becoming the final one.

Property owners also frequently attempt to shift blame to a maintenance contractor or snow removal company. We investigate every contract and insurance policy connected to the property to identify all potentially liable parties, since a building owner's insurance alone may not be the only source of recovery.

Timeline: from the fall to resolution

Most cases begin with a preservation letter and records requests within the first week, followed by medical treatment documentation over the following months. If litigation becomes necessary, expect roughly 1 to 2 years for discovery and depositions in a straightforward case, longer for cases involving multiple defendants such as an owner, a management company, and a maintenance contractor.

Settlement typically occurs after notice and causation are firmly established, often once depositions of the property's employees or maintenance staff have been taken and the defense understands the case is being prepared for trial rather than a quick resolution.