Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

New York Court Discusses Storm in Progress Doctrine

Published on: July 27, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Winter weather creates hazardous conditions for pedestrians across New York, but not every slip and fall on snow or ice automatically gives rise to a successful personal injury claim. Property owners generally have a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises, yet New York law recognizes that they cannot always remove snow and ice while a storm is actively occurring. A recent New York ruling examined when the storm in progress doctrine shields a property owner from liability and what evidence is necessary to invoke that protection. If you suffered injuries after a winter slip and fall, you should speak with an experienced Syracuse personal injury attorney to determine whether you may have a viable claim.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping and falling on a sidewalk owned by the defendant commercial property owner during the morning hours following overnight snowfall. The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action, asserting that the defendant failed to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the action should be dismissed under New York’s storm in progress doctrine because snowfall was continuing at the time of the accident and the defendant therefore had no legal duty to remove the accumulating snow or ice before the storm ended. determination.

Reportedly, the defendant relied on surveillance video showing the conditions immediately before the accident, along with testimony establishing that snow had fallen overnight and that employees had begun snow removal efforts during the early morning hours. The plaintiff argued that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an active storm sufficient to trigger the doctrine and maintained that factual disputes should have prevented dismissal of the case. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Examines Causation in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: July 22, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Medical malpractice claims involving prescription medications often turn on more than whether a healthcare provider made a questionable treatment decision. A plaintiff must also establish that the departure from accepted medical practice actually caused the patient’s injury or death. A recent federal decision applying New York law illustrates how the causation requirement can determine the outcome of a malpractice action even when the prescribing practices themselves remain disputed. If you believe negligent prescribing or medication management caused you or a loved one to suffer serious harm, you should speak with an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your possible claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the decedent had a lengthy history of substance abuse and received primary care from the defendants for several years. He also had paraplegia after a prior accident and later suffered significant burns to his legs. During treatment for those burns, a medical provider prescribed hydrocodone for pain. The prescriptions continued for more than a year, even though the patient had a known history of opioid misuse, received early refills, took benzodiazepines, and produced drug-screen results showing multiple controlled substances. Family members also expressed concern that the patient was engaging in drug-seeking behavior and had resumed abusing drugs.

Reportedly, the patient was found deceased in his home in July 2021, surrounded by drug paraphernalia and evidence of recent illicit drug use. The medical examiner attributed the death to acute intoxication caused by the combined effects of several substances, including hydrocodone, alprazolam, fentanyl, and norfentanyl. The estate commenced an action asserting medical malpractice, wrongful death, and related claims against the healthcare providers and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, maintaining that the plaintiff could not prove that any prescribed medication caused or contributed to the death.

It is alleged that the plaintiff relied on expert opinions asserting that prescribing opioids together with benzodiazepines departed from accepted medical practice and increased the risk of respiratory depression. The plaintiff’s experts also maintained that the continued opioid prescriptions contributed to the patient’s renewed addiction and eventual overdose. The defendants’ toxicology expert, however, concluded that the prescribed hydrocodone and alprazolam were present at therapeutic, nonlethal levels and that the fentanyl concentration alone fell within a fatal range. The matter came before a federal magistrate judge for a report and recommendation on the summary judgment motions. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Notice in Personal Injury Cases

Published on: June 30, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

People walking on public sidewalks should be able to expect that municipalities will maintain reasonably safe walking conditions. When a dangerous sidewalk defect causes a serious fall, however, injured pedestrians often encounter legal hurdles that do not exist in other personal injury cases. One of the most significant is the prior written notice requirement, which frequently shields municipalities from liability unless a recognized exception applies. A recent New York decision demonstrates that a municipality may still be held accountable when its own work immediately creates a dangerous sidewalk condition. If you have been injured in a slip, trip, or fall caused by unsafe public property, you should speak with an experienced Syracuse personal injury attorney to determine whether you may have a viable claim.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered injuries after tripping over a raised section of sidewalk located within the defendant village. The plaintiff contended that the dangerous condition resulted from sidewalk repair work performed by the municipality. According to evidence submitted during the litigation, the plaintiff’s husband observed that the sidewalk had been improperly reinstalled, creating an uneven and unsafe walking surface. He further stated that he immediately contacted the municipality’s Superintendent of Public Works to report the hazardous condition after observing the completed repair.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a personal injury action seeking damages for the injuries sustained in the fall. The municipality moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed because it had never received the prior written notice ordinarily required before a municipality can be held liable for defects in public sidewalks. The municipality also argued that the sidewalk defect was too minor to constitute a dangerous condition. The trial court denied the motion, and the municipality appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses the Limits of COVID-19 Immunity

Published on: June 25, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

The COVID-19 pandemic forced hospitals across New York to make difficult operational decisions while caring for unprecedented numbers of critically ill patients. Although emergency legislation temporarily protected healthcare providers from certain malpractice claims arising during that period, those protections were never intended to excuse every medical error simply because treatment occurred during the pandemic. A recent New York decision explains that healthcare providers seeking immunity must demonstrate a direct connection between the alleged negligence and the challenges created by the public health emergency. If you believe you were injured by negligent medical treatment during or after the COVID-19 pandemic, an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can evaluate whether emergency immunity laws affect your right to pursue compensation.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought emergency treatment after experiencing symptoms consistent with a gallbladder attack. Imaging studies revealed gallstones, and the defendant surgeon recommended the removal of the gallbladder. Following the laparoscopic procedure, the plaintiff developed jaundice and worsening symptoms. Additional testing performed at another medical facility revealed that surgical clips had obstructed the common bile duct, requiring reconstructive surgery to repair the injury.

Reportedly, the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendants negligently performed the gallbladder surgery by failing to properly identify the patient’s anatomy before placing surgical clips, causing injury to the bile duct. The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants failed to timely recognize and diagnose the postoperative complication. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because the COVID-19 pandemic affected hospital operations during the plaintiff’s treatment. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Analyzes Constructive Notice in Slip and Fall Cases

Published on: May 28, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Slip and fall cases often hinge on whether a property owner knew or should have known about a dangerous condition before an accident occurred. While businesses are not automatically liable whenever a customer is injured on their premises, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to identify and address hazards that could foreseeably cause harm. A recent New York ruling illustrates how courts analyze constructive notice claims and why factual disputes regarding a property’s condition can prevent dismissal before trial. If you were injured in a fall caused by unsafe property conditions, you should speak with a Syracuse personal injury attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited a retail store in Brooklyn on the evening of June 27, 2021. As she walked through the store’s main checkout aisle toward the guest services area, she slipped and fell. After the accident, she learned that she had fallen on a spill consisting of baby food and broken glass.

Reportedly, the hazardous condition was created approximately thirteen minutes before the accident when another customer dropped a glass jar of baby food in the main aisle. Surveillance footage captured the spill remaining on the floor during the 13-minute period leading up to the plaintiff’s fall. During that time, several customers walked through the area, and some altered their paths to avoid the spill. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Court Emphasizes the Importance of Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: May 23, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Medical malpractice lawsuits often rise or fall based on expert testimony. When healthcare providers seek dismissal of claims before trial, plaintiffs must present detailed, well-supported expert opinions that directly address the providers’ defenses. A recent New York opinion demonstrates how courts evaluate competing expert submissions and highlights the consequences of relying on conclusory opinions that fail to engage with the opposing side’s evidence. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims and legal options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against a hospital arising out of treatment provided to the decedent during a hospitalization. The plaintiff contended that the hospital failed to provide appropriate care while transporting the decedent from the emergency department to another area of the facility and that the alleged failures contributed to serious injuries and ultimately the decedent’s death.

Reportedly, during the transfer, hospital personnel utilized an Ambu bag and monitored the decedent’s vital signs. The plaintiff later asserted that the care provided during the transfer fell below accepted medical standards and caused the decedent to experience hypoxia and other complications. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Cases

Published on: April 26, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Slip-and-fall cases often turn on whether a property owner had notice of a dangerous condition and whether another party can shift responsibility for maintaining the premises. In other words, when hazardous conditions persist over time, courts must determine who controlled the area. In some instances, the evidence not only demonstrates notice but also clearly establishes negligence as a matter of law, warranting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, as demonstrated in a recent New York decision. If you were injured due to unsafe property conditions, you should speak with a knowledgeable Syracuse personal injury attorney who can help you understand your legal options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a personal injury action after slipping and falling in a building vestibule near a freight elevator, claiming that inadequate lighting and a slippery substance caused the incident. The plaintiff asserted that the property owner failed to maintain the area in a safe condition and allowed a hazardous environment to persist.

It is alleged that the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the property owner, arguing that the dangerous condition was longstanding and that the owner had notice of both the lighting defect and the substance on the floor. The plaintiff supported the motion with testimony describing the dark conditions, along with photographs depicting the area and its hazards. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Grounds for Defeating Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: April 20, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Medical malpractice cases frequently arise from failures to diagnose serious conditions, where even a brief delay in treatment can result in lasting harm. Courts closely examine whether a healthcare provider’s actions met accepted standards and whether expert testimony meaningfully addresses the specific allegations of negligence. A recent New York decision demonstrates how weak or conclusory expert opinions can unravel a defendant’s attempt to dismiss a case before trial. When a provider cannot fully account for critical diagnostic decisions, the claim is more likely to proceed. If you or a loved one experienced harm due to a missed or delayed diagnosis, acting quickly can make a significant difference, and you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to protect your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries to the right hand, asserting that the defendant failed to properly diagnose a transected tendon in the plaintiff’s ring finger, resulting in lasting limitations in mobility.

It is alleged that the defendant treated the plaintiff but did not identify the severity of the tendon injury or recommend timely surgical intervention, which the plaintiff claims was necessary to prevent permanent impairment. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Summary Judgment in New York Car Accident Cases

Published on: March 26, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Determining liability in pedestrian accident cases often depends on precise factual details, including where the pedestrian was located and whether traffic signals were followed. Courts must carefully evaluate whether the evidence clearly establishes fault or whether disputed facts require a jury’s resolution. A recent New York decision shows how gaps in proof and reliance on inadmissible evidence can prevent a plaintiff from obtaining summary judgment, even in serious fatal accident cases. If you or a loved one has been injured in a roadway accident, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse personal injury attorney to understand your options for seeking damages.

Procedural and Factual Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff, acting as administrator of the decedent’s estate, commenced a personal injury action after the decedent was struck by a box truck operated by the defendant driver and owned by a corporate defendant, resulting in fatal injuries.

It is alleged that the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, asserting that the defendant driver failed to exercise due care and was responsible for the accident. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: March 23, 2026 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Surgical malpractice cases often hinge on whether physicians took appropriate steps before entering the operating room, including reviewing medical history and confirming key anatomical facts. When critical preoperative measures are overlooked, even routine procedures can result in avoidable harm and litigation. A recent New York ruling illustrates how failures in preoperative evaluation and disputed expert opinions can prevent dismissal of malpractice claims. If you believe a surgical error may have injured you, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to understand your rights and potential legal remedies.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic surgical procedure intended to remove the gallbladder, during which the defendant physician was unable to locate the organ.

It is alleged that subsequent imaging studies revealed that the plaintiff did not have a gallbladder, raising questions about whether appropriate preoperative diagnostic measures had been performed before the surgery. Continue Reading ›