Slipping and Falling on Snow and Ice in New York City

Winter weather in New York City creates more than inconvenience. Snow, sleet, and freezing rain routinely turn sidewalks, parking lots, and store entrances into dangerous walking surfaces. Every year, pedestrians suffer fractures, head injuries, and back injuries after slipping on untreated ice or compacted snow. These incidents often lead to serious personal injury claims when property owners fail to meet their legal obligations.

For residents of New York City, understanding who is responsible for clearing snow and ice is critical. Liability is not automatic. It depends on where the fall occurred, who controlled the property, and whether the responsible party had a reasonable opportunity to correct the condition. At Leandros A. Vrionedes, P.C., sidewalk and winter-related slip and fall cases are evaluated with careful attention to local codes and long-standing New York legal principles. If you’ve been hurt in a fall on snow and ice in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, or the Bronx, call our office to speak with an experienced and dedicated NYC slip and fall accident and injury attorney.

Why Snow and Ice Falls Are So Dangerous

A fall on snow or ice is not a minor accident. Ice eliminates traction, and victims often fall backward without warning. Common injuries include:

• Wrist and arm fractures from bracing against the fall
• Ankle fractures from twisting on uneven ice
• Hip fractures, particularly among older adults
• Herniated discs and spinal injuries
• Traumatic brain injuries from striking the head

Unlike some slip and fall incidents where the hazard is visible, black ice or refrozen slush can be nearly impossible to detect. The sudden nature of these falls often increases injury severity.

Sidewalk Falls: When Is a Property Owner Responsible?

In New York City, responsibility for sidewalk maintenance is governed largely by Administrative Code § 7-210. This law places the duty to maintain and repair sidewalks, including snow and ice removal, on the owner of the abutting property, not the City, in most cases.

With limited exceptions (such as certain one-, two-, or three-family owner-occupied homes), commercial and residential property owners must clear snow and ice within specific timeframes after a storm ends, maintain sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition, and prevent hazardous refreezing caused by improper clearing. If a property owner fails to remove snow or ice within the legally required period and someone falls as a result, that owner may be held liable.

Outside New York City, including parts of Nassau and Westchester counties, municipal rules differ. In some areas, the town or village may retain sidewalk responsibility unless a local ordinance shifts the duty to adjacent property owners. Careful review of local law is required in each case.

Snow Removal Deadlines in New York City

New York City Administrative Code § 16-123 sets clear deadlines for snow removal:

• If snow stops falling between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., sidewalks must be cleared within four hours.
• If snow stops between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., clearing must occur within fourteen hours.
• If snow stops between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., sidewalks must be cleared by 11:00 a.m. the next day.

Failure to comply can result in fines and may serve as evidence of negligence in a civil lawsuit. However, compliance with the timing rule alone does not automatically shield a property owner from liability. Courts also examine whether the removal efforts were performed reasonably. For example, pushing snow into piles that melt and refreeze into ice patches can still create liability.

The “Storm in Progress” Doctrine

One of the most important legal concepts in snow and ice cases is the “storm in progress” doctrine. Under New York law, a property owner generally is not required to remove snow or ice while a storm is actively ongoing. The law recognizes that it would be unreasonable to expect constant clearing during active snowfall or freezing precipitation. However, once the storm ends, the owner must act within a reasonable time, as defined by local code, to remedy hazardous conditions.

This doctrine often becomes a central issue in litigation. Defendants may argue that the storm was still ongoing at the time of the fall. Plaintiffs, in turn, may present certified weather records, expert meteorological testimony, surveillance footage showing no active precipitation, and other evidence to rebut these arguments. Timing can often determine whether a case survives attempts at dismissal by property owners and their insurance companies.

Store Entrances and Exits: Higher Expectations of Care

Retail stores, supermarkets, and commercial establishments have a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions for customers. This includes entrances, vestibules, and walkways leading into the store. These areas present unique hazards during winter, including melted snow tracked inside by customers, slushy mats that become saturated, refrozen ice near automatic doors, and inadequate floor mats or warning signs.

While outdoor sidewalks may be subject to snow removal timing rules, interior areas are governed by general premises liability principles. A store can be liable if it knew or should have known that water or ice accumulated and failed to address it promptly. Evidence in these cases often includes cleaning logs, maintenance policies, surveillance video, and employee testimony.

Unlike purely outdoor sidewalk claims, interior entrance cases frequently hinge on constructive notice — whether the dangerous condition existed long enough that the store should have discovered and corrected it.

Parking Lot and Garage Falls

Parking lots and garages are another common site of winter-related falls. Commercial property owners must maintain these areas in a reasonably safe condition.

Common hazards include:

• Icy parking spaces
• Poorly plowed snowbanks blocking pedestrian paths
• Refrozen runoff from melting piles
• Sloped surfaces that worsen icy buildup

Liability depends on who owns or controls the property. For example, in shopping centers, responsibility may fall on the landlord, a property management company, or a snow removal contractor. In some cases, snow removal contractors themselves may be named as defendants if their negligent plowing or salting created or worsened the dangerous condition.

Actual vs. Constructive Notice

To succeed in a snow and ice slip and fall case, an injured person generally must prove that the responsible party either had:

• Actual notice (they knew about the hazard), or
• Constructive notice (the hazard existed long enough that they should have known).

For example, a thick sheet of ice that formed hours after a storm ended may support constructive notice. By contrast, a fresh patch of ice that developed minutes before a fall may not. Photographs taken immediately after the fall can be critical evidence. So can witness statements and weather data.

What to Do After a Snow or Ice Fall in NYC

If you slip and fall on snow or ice in New York City or the surrounding counties:

• Seek medical attention immediately.
• Take photographs of the snow or ice before it melts.
• Obtain names and contact information of witnesses.
• Report the incident to the property owner or manager.
• Avoid making statements that admit fault.

Because snow and ice evidence disappears quickly, prompt action is critical.

Call Leandros A. Vrionedes, P.C.

Snow and ice slip and fall cases are highly fact-specific. Weather timing, maintenance records, building code compliance, and property ownership all matter. Insurance companies often rely on the “storm in progress” defense or argue lack of notice.

Leandros A. Vrionedes, P.C., represents injured individuals throughout New York City, Nassau County, and Westchester County in premises liability cases involving sidewalks, parking lots, and commercial entrances. If you or a loved one was injured in a winter-related fall, a careful legal review can determine whether a property owner failed to meet their obligations. Contact us today for a free consultation. An early investigation can make the difference between a dismissed claim and meaningful financial recovery.