Legal Drafting I

Midterm

Due : November 3, 2019, no later than 11:59PM (23:59) via Turnitin.com

Class ID : 22886933
Class Enrollment Key : 23938
Format : 12pt Times New Roman font
Double spaced lines
Rules : You must work on this exam independently, i.e., without help from
classmates
Dictionaries, online translation sites, and notes may be used
Questions : Please email me with any questions during the exam period
I can be reached at ataozlemata@gmail.com

QUESTION 1

You are working at a law firm. The requesting attorney tells you that the client Joaquin Winters

came to the office and asked whether he should sue New York City for the injuries he had suffer

because of a slip and fall incident. The requesting attorney gives you the facts and the relevant law

below and wants you to write the discussion part of an office memo. Please write only the

discussion part of an office memo in CREAC format based on the facts and the relevant law below.

FACTS:

 Joaquin Winters is a 50 years old teacher.

 At 6:15 A.M., on December 18, 2018, Joaquin Winters, on his way to the school from his

home just couple houses away, slipped and fell on the sidewalk in front of 4120 Beaver

Avenue, New York City (hereafter also referred as “City”) and suffered injuries to his left

ankle.
 Sometime on December 16, 2018, a severe ice storm, described as the second worst in the

preceding 50 years, and consisting of a combination of snow, sleet and freezing rain, struck

the metropolitan area.

 The storm continued until midnight of December 17th, and deposited between two and

three inches of precipitation on the ground.

 The City, in its aftermath, looked “like a skating pond”. The three inch “icy mass” which

covered the ground could not be removed by shovel but had to be chopped away with ice

picks.

 In the approximately thirty and one-quarter hours between the end of the storm and Mr.

Winters’ fall, the temperature did not rise above freezing, and dropped to as low as 17°F.

 Beaver Avenue is a residential street in the eastern Queens, New York City, abutted by one

and two family private homes.

 The City's snow removal operations, which extend over 6,401 miles of streets and 11,420

miles of sidewalk, broken down into 58 snow removal districts, began on December 16th

and continued at least until December 21st.

 The snow removal district in which Beaver Avenue is situated consists of 120 miles of

streets and 240 miles of sidewalks, abutted by as many as 19,483 dwelling units.

 In the days from December 17th to December 18th, the City assigned 35, 25, and 33 men,

respectively, to snow removal duty in this district alone. Working overtime they used as

many as 32 pieces of snow removal equipment in one day, including plows and front-end

loaders, and spread, in the three day period, 1,421 tons of salt.

2
  At the time of the accident the City had not cleared the ice and snow which had fallen on

the sidewalk in front of 4120 Beaver Avenue, a private dwelling on a residential street, not

in immediate proximity to any intersection or crosswalk.

All characters appearing in these facts are fictitious. Any resemblance to real or legal
persons is purely coincidental.

RELEVANT LAW (RULES)

 Mandel v. City of New York, 44 N.Y.2d 1004, 408 N.Y.S.2d 342, 380 N.E.2d 173; Hamill

v. City of New York, 78 A.D.2d 792, 433 N.Y.S.2d 20, aff'd 52 N.Y.2d 1045, 438

N.Y.S.2d 519, 420 N.E.2d 400; Schlausky v. City of New York, 41 A.D.2d 156, 341

N.Y.S.2d 548. : A municipality is not liable in negligence for injuries sustained by a

pedestrian who slips and falls on an icy sidewalk unless a reasonable time has elapsed

between the end of the storm giving rise to the icy condition and the occurrence of the

accident.

 De Boulet v. City of New York, 192 App.Div. 359, 364, 182 N.Y.S. 697. : A reasonable

time is that period within which the municipality should have taken notice of the icy

condition and, in the exercise of reasonable care, remedied it by clearing the sidewalk or

otherwise eliminating the danger.

 Harrington v. City of Buffalo, 121 N.Y. 147, 24 N.E. 186. : Negligence may be inferred

from the omission by the municipal corporation to cause dangerous obstructions to be

removed from the streets after sufficient time has elapsed to afford a presumption of

knowledge of their existence and an opportunity to effect their removal.

3
 Mandel v. City of New York, supra, 44 N.Y.2d at 1005, 408 N.Y.S.2d 342, 380 N.E.2d

173. : The plaintiff had failed to prove that the City “was negligent in permitting the

extraordinary snowfall to exist for an unreasonable period of time or that it had a reasonable

opportunity to remedy the condition”.

 Hamill v. City of New York, supra, 78 A.D.2d 792, 433 N.Y.S.2d 20. : Plaintiff had the

burden of showing that the City permitted an unusual and dangerous accumulation of ice

and snow to remain on the sidewalk where the accident occurred for an unreasonable period

of time.

 Schlausky v. City of New York, supra, 41 A.D.2d at 158, 341 N.Y.S.2d 548. : A

municipality is liable for failure to clear snow and ice from its sidewalks only if “a

dangerous condition was created and permitted to exist for such a period as would

reasonably have afforded an opportunity to remedy the condition”.

 Kelly v. Manhattan Railway Co., 112 N.Y. 443, 452, 20 N.E. 383; Falina v. Hollis Diner,

Inc., 281 App.Div. 711, 118 N.Y.S.2d 137; Bressler v. Rule Realty Co. Inc., 219

App.Div. 529, 248 N.Y. 619; McAuley v. United Cigar Stores Co. of America, Inc., 204

App.Div. 356, 198 N.Y.S. 154, 236 N.Y. 633, 142 N.E. 313. : The reasonableness of the

time within which a municipality must respond to its duty to clear the sidewalks is

measured from the time that the storm comes to an end since, as one court has noted,

“Responsibility for ice conditions arises, at the most, only after the lapse of a reasonable

time for taking protective measures and never while a storm is still in progress”.