Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - New York

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF NEW YORK

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, New York ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of New York

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Claims Representative Name / General Counsel]
[Property Owner / Management Company / Insurance Company Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PREMISES LIABILITY DEMAND - SLIP AND FALL
Our Client: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date of Fall]
Location of Incident: [Full Address of Property]
Property Owner: [Property Owner Name]
Property Manager: [Management Company Name, if applicable]
Claim Number: [Claim Number, if assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] ("Claimant") for injuries sustained on [Date of Incident] at premises owned and/or controlled by your insured/client, located at [Property Address], in [County] County, New York. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement and provides a comprehensive analysis of liability under New York law, our client's injuries, and damages.

I. NEW YORK-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 214(5), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including premises liability, is three (3) years from the date of injury. This incident occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

For claims governed by the General Municipal Law notice provisions: General Municipal Law § 50-e generally requires a Notice of Claim to be served within ninety (90) days after the claim arises. For defendants and actions within § 50-i, suit generally must be commenced within one year and ninety days after the event on which the claim is based. Recent custody-related amendments can alter notice and limitations rules for injuries or conditions suffered while in custody. [If applicable: We served the notice on [Date].]

For negligence claims against the State of New York: Court of Claims Act § 10(3) generally requires the claim to be filed and served within 90 days after accrual, unless a notice of intention is served within that period; a timely notice of intention generally extends the negligence-claim deadline to two years after accrual. Special rules and recent custody-related amendments may apply.

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under New York Law

New York abolished the invitee/licensee/trespasser classifications as the basis for fixing a land possessor's duty. Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241 (1976), applies a single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, with foreseeability of the entrant's presence and the likelihood of injury informing the analysis.

Our client was lawfully present for [purpose], and that presence was reasonably foreseeable.

C. Pure Comparative Negligence

New York follows pure comparative negligence under C.P.L.R. Section 1411. A plaintiff may recover damages even if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant. Recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

Our client bears no responsibility for this incident.

D. Snow and Ice Liability in New York

New York has specific rules regarding snow and ice liability:

Storm in Progress Rule: Under Sherman v. New York State Thruway Authority, 27 N.Y.3d 1019, 1020-21 (2016), a landowner generally is not liable for icy or snowy conditions occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter. Pre-existing conditions and negligent snow-removal activity require claim-specific analysis.

Reasonable Time After Storm: Once a storm has ended, property owners must clear snow and ice within a reasonable time. What constitutes "reasonable time" depends on the circumstances.

NYC Administrative Code § 7-210: In New York City, § 7-210 shifts specified sidewalk-maintenance liability to certain abutting owners, including negligent snow-and-ice removal. The shift does not apply to one-, two-, or three-family residential property that is at least partly owner occupied and used exclusively for residential purposes; other ownership, City-property, prior-written-notice, and defect-specific rules may apply. Mantinaos v. City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03957.

[If ice/snow case:] The hazardous condition at issue existed [after a reasonable time following the storm that ended on Date / as a result of defendant's negligent snow removal efforts that caused an unnatural accumulation].

E. Notice Requirements

Under New York law, to establish liability, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant:

1. Created the dangerous condition; OR
2. Had actual notice of the dangerous condition; OR
3. Had constructive notice - the condition was visible and apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it. Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 (1986).

Recurring Condition: A defendant's actual notice of a recurring dangerous condition can support constructive notice of the condition's recurrence at the accident location. Uhlich v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y., 305 A.D.2d 107, 107 (1st Dep't 2003).

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this incident and the subject premises, including but not limited to:

• All surveillance video footage from the date of incident (interior and exterior cameras)
• Surveillance footage from 48 hours before and after the incident
• Incident/accident reports prepared by employees or management
• Witness statements taken at the time of incident
• Maintenance logs and repair records for the area of the fall
• Inspection records and checklists for the date of incident and prior 12 months
• Cleaning schedules and logs
• Weather records and reports from the date of incident
• Prior complaints regarding the hazardous condition
• Prior incidents or falls at the same or similar location
• Work orders and maintenance requests for the area
• Photographs of the incident location
• Written policies and procedures for maintenance, inspection, and safety
• Training records for employees responsible for premises safety
• All communications regarding the incident
• Insurance policies applicable to this claim

Under Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A., 26 N.Y.3d 543, 547-48 (2015), a party seeking a spoliation sanction must establish a preservation obligation, a culpable state of mind, and relevance of the destroyed evidence. Any sanction is discretionary and should be appropriate to the established circumstances.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type - e.g., "a retail shopping center," "a grocery store," "a restaurant," "an apartment complex," "an office building," "a hotel," etc.]. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, possessed, maintained, and/or controlled the subject premises.

[If property manager involved:]
[Management Company Name] was responsible for the day-to-day management, maintenance, inspection, and safety of the premises.

B. The Hazardous Condition

On the date of the incident, a dangerous and hazardous condition existed on the premises, specifically: [Describe the hazardous condition in detail]

[CUSTOMIZE BASED ON TYPE OF HAZARD:]

• Wet/Slippery Floor: A liquid substance [water / spilled merchandise / cleaning solution / grease] was present on the floor in the [specific location], creating an extremely slippery and dangerous walking surface. There were no warning signs, cones, or barriers in place to alert persons using the area to this hazard.

• Uneven Walking Surface: A raised or uneven section of [flooring / sidewalk / parking lot / threshold / carpet] created a tripping hazard. The elevation change was [describe height differential] and was not marked, repaired, or remediated.

• Snow/Ice Accumulation: Snow and/or ice had accumulated at [location] and had not been properly cleared, salted, or remediated despite adequate time following the precipitation event that ended on [Date/Time].

• Defective Stairs/Steps: The [stairway / steps] at [location] were defective and dangerous due to [describe defect].

• Inadequate Lighting: The [location] was inadequately lit, obscuring the hazardous condition.

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing] when [describe the fall]:

[Detailed narrative of the incident]

D. Response to the Incident

[Describe what happened after the fall]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care Under New York Law

Under New York law, [Property Owner Name] owed our client the reasonable-care duty applicable under the circumstances:

1. To maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition - Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233 (1976)
2. To discover and remedy dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
3. To warn of latent dangers that were known or should have been known
4. To exercise reasonable care regarding foreseeable hazards and foreseeable entrants

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached these duties by:

1. Created the Condition:
[If defendant created the condition - describe]

2. Actual Notice:
[If evidence of actual knowledge - describe]

3. Constructive Notice:
Under Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 (1986), constructive notice exists when a defect is visible and apparent and exists for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it.

[Include evidence of constructive notice - footprints in spill, dirty appearance, length of time, etc.]

4. Recurring Condition:
[If applicable:] Defendant had actual notice that this hazardous condition regularly recurred at the accident location. Uhlich v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y., 305 A.D.2d 107, 107 (1st Dep't 2003).

C. Causation

The dangerous condition described above was the proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries under New York law.

D. Comparative Fault Defense

While New York applies pure comparative negligence, our client was exercising reasonable care:

• Our client was using the premises in a foreseeable manner
• The hazard was not open and obvious
• Our client had no reason to anticipate the dangerous condition

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Summary of Injuries

As a direct and proximate result of the fall, our client sustained the following injuries:

[List primary diagnoses]

B. Treatment Chronology

Emergency Care - [Date]:
[Details]

Surgical Intervention (If Applicable):
[Details]

Follow-Up Care:
[Details]

Physical Therapy/Rehabilitation:
[Details]

C. Current Status and Prognosis

[Describe current condition and prognosis]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Past Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity

D. Pain and Suffering / Non-Economic Damages

Our client claims the following non-economic harms, subject to the allocation, collateral-source, government-claim, and other rules applicable to the particular defendants and claims:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Emotional distress
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• [Additional non-economic damages]

E. Summary of Damages

VII. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

Municipal Entities (Cities, Counties, Towns, Villages):

This claim involves a municipal entity. We have complied with the General Municipal Law:

• Notice of Claim served within 90 days pursuant to G.M.L. § 50-e
• Notice served on [Entity Name] on [Date]
• At least 30 days have elapsed after ordinary service of the notice (40 days after alternative service through the Secretary of State under G.M.L. § 53), adjustment or payment has been neglected or refused, and suit will be/has been commenced within one year and ninety days under G.M.L. § 50-i
• Any demanded examination under G.M.L. § 50-h has been completed or otherwise resolved before suit

State of New York:

• [Claim filed and served within 90 days / notice of intention served within 90 days and negligence claim filed and served within two years] pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(3)

NYC-Specific: Confirm § 7-210's owner-occupied residential exception and all City, prior-written-notice, ownership, and defect-specific issues.

VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the liability evidence described above, the severity of our client's injuries, and the damages incurred, we hereby demand the sum of:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

B. Time for Response

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].

Failure to respond or failure to make a reasonable offer will result in immediate filing of suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, [County] County.

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Complete medical records from all treating providers
• Itemized medical bills
• Photographs of the incident location
• Photographs of injuries
• Incident report (if obtained)
• Employment records and wage verification
• Weather records (if applicable)
• HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

The evidence described above supports our client's position that the dangerous condition was created by your insured or was subject to actual or constructive notice and that it caused the claimed injuries.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
New York Attorney Registration No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

NEW YORK-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Pure Comparative Negligence: Recovery allowed regardless of plaintiff's fault percentage. C.P.L.R. Section 1411.

• Notice Requirement: Must prove defendant created condition, had actual notice, or had constructive notice. Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 (1986).

• Storm in Progress: A landowner generally is not liable for a snow-or-ice condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter; analyze pre-existing conditions and snow-removal activity separately. Sherman v. New York State Thruway Authority, 27 N.Y.3d 1019 (2016).

• NYC Sidewalk Liability: Section 7-210 shifts liability only within its terms and excludes qualifying owner-occupied one-, two-, and three-family residential property used exclusively for residential purposes.

• Municipal Claims: G.M.L. § 50-e generally requires notice within 90 days after the claim arises, subject to statutory exceptions and current custody-related provisions.

• Article 16 Allocation: Subject to statutory exceptions, CPLR § 1601 limits a defendant assigned 50% or less of total liability to its equitable share of the claimant's non-economic loss; it is not a blanket rule governing all damages.

• Collateral Sources: CPLR § 4545 can reduce specified economic-loss awards when the court finds qualifying collateral reimbursement with sufficient certainty, subject to the statute's exceptions and offsets.

• Venue: CPLR § 503(a) generally uses a county where a party resided when the action commenced; if no party then resided in New York, the plaintiff may designate a county, subject to special venue statutes.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• CPLR §§ 214, 1411, 1601, 4545, 503 — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/214; https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1411; https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1601; https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/4545; https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/503
• General Municipal Law §§ 50-e, 50-h, 50-i — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GMU/50-E; https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GMU/50-H; https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GMU/50-I
• Court of Claims Act § 10 — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CTC/10
• NYC Administrative Code § 7-210 — https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-4164
• Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233 (1976) — https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/basso_miller.htm
• Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 (1986) — https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/gordon_amrican_museum.htm
• Sherman v. New York State Thruway Authority, 27 N.Y.3d 1019 (2016) — https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_03546.htm
• Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A., 26 N.Y.3d 543 (2015) — https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_09187.htm
• Uhlich v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y., 305 A.D.2d 107 (1st Dep't 2003), as applied in Valencia v. Sol Goldman Investments LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03413 — https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_03413.shtml
• Mantinaos v. City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03957 — https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_03957.shtml