Belevich v. Renaissance I, LLC., 207 Conn.App. 119

On January 31, 2017, Robert Belevich slipped and fell in a New Haven parking lot and testified it was snowing at the time; he believed he fell on black ice but did not know how long it had been present.
Defendants (property owner/manager and contractors) moved for summary judgment arguing the ongoing storm doctrine applied and they lacked actual or constructive notice of any preexisting defect.
Defendants supported their motion with Belevich’s deposition testimony that it was snowing when he fell; plaintiffs opposed with additional deposition excerpts and an affidavit that did not contradict that it was snowing.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants under the ongoing storm doctrine.
On appeal the plaintiffs argued (1) defendants failed to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact about the doctrine’s applicability and (2) the court improperly shifted the burden to plaintiff by not requiring defendants to prove the storm produced the black ice.
The Appellate Court affirmed, adopting a New York-style burden-shifting framework: once a defendant shows a storm was in progress, the plaintiff must raise a triable issue that the hazard preexisted the storm and that the defendant had notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants met their initial summary-judgment burden to show an ongoing storm at the time of the fall	Belevich argued defendants did not establish absence of a genuine factual dispute (and that defendants should have had to prove the storm produced the black ice)	Defendants relied on plaintiff’s deposition showing it was snowing when he fell, arguing that establishes a storm in progress	Held for defendants: plaintiff’s own deposition/admissions left no dispute that a storm was ongoing, satisfying defendants’ initial burden
Whether burden shifting was proper and whether plaintiff raised triable issue that ice preexisted the storm and defendants had notice	Plaintiff argued the court improperly shifted burden and that defendants should have had to produce evidence about temperature/when the black ice formed	Defendants argued that once they showed a storm in progress, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show preexisting ice and defendant notice; plaintiff produced no evidence of preexisting ice or notice	Held for defendants: court correctly applied burden shifting (adopting Meyers); plaintiff produced no evidence that the ice preexisted the storm or that defendants had notice, so summary judgment proper

Kraus v. Newton, 211 Conn. 191 (Conn. 1989) (adopting the ongoing storm doctrine permitting landowners to await end of storm and reasonable time before removing snow/ice)
Leon v. DeJesus, 123 Conn. App. 574 (Conn. App. 2010) (affirming summary judgment under ongoing storm doctrine where storm in progress was undisputed)
Meyers v. Big Six Towers, Inc., 85 App. Div. 3d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (articulating burden-shifting: if defendant shows storm in progress, plaintiff must raise triable issue that ice preexisted storm and defendant had notice)