SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0067-22

MARIA PERDOMO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

SNOWLIFT, LLC, 

 Defendant-Respondent, 

and 

PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW 

YORK AND NEW JERSEY, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________

Argued January 16, 2024 – Decided April 10, 2024 

Before Judges Gilson and Bishop-Thompson. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-1749-18.

Maurice J. Donovan argued the cause for appellant 

(Law Office of Barbosa Donovan, attorneys; Marilyn 

K. Barbosa and Maurice J Donovan, of counsel and on

the briefs). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-0067-22

Jennifer Huang (KMA Zuckert LLC) argued the cause 

for respondent (Jennifer Huang and Nicholas E. 

Pantelopoulos, attorneys; Jennifer Huang and Nicholas 

E. Pantelopoulos, of counsel and on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

In this personal injury action, plaintiff Maria Perdomo appeals from a July 

29, 2022 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Snowlift, LLC 

(Snowlift), the contractor hired by United Airlines (United) to perform snow 

removal and clearance services at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). 

We affirm. 

I.

We discern the following facts from the motion record construed in the 

light most favorable to Perdomo as the non-moving party. See Templo Fuente 

De Vida Corp. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189, 199 

(2016). The Port Authority leases Terminal C at EWR to United. Under the 

lease agreement, United is responsible for snow removal and clearance at 

United’s terminals. 

United retained Snowlift to provide snow removal and clearance services 

from the aircraft gate position areas, the ramp, and the apron areas. The 

Agreement defines snow clearance as the "pushing and piling of accumulated 
3 A-0067-22

snow" and snow removal as "either the hauling away of snow or loading of snow 

melters and the operation thereof." As to the scope of services, Snowlift agreed 

to perform snow clearance services "on a continuous twenty-four hours per day 

and seven days per week basis during the [s]now [s]eason," and push and plow 

snow until all accumulations were put into piles at the designated locations as 

set forth in the addendum to the Agreement. Snowlift also agreed to perform 

snow removal service from the designated United areas using an ice melter upon 

United's request. Further, Snowlift would continue to perform the snow removal 

service until all snow accumulations placed in piles has melted and drained 

excepting any piles United chooses to leave for natural melting. Both services 

required United's written authorization for the satisfactory completion of 

services and Snowlift's release from the performance of its contractual services. 

Pursuant to section 5.7.3 of the Agreement, Snowlift was precluded from 

performing any services for which there would be an additional charge or was 

the responsibility of another supplier without prior written authorization from 

United. In that regard, Snowlift was only to "perform ice control on any 

pavement when requested in writing by United." The Agreement defined ice 

control as "the spreading of material such as sodium acetate/formate, potassium, 

acetate, sand[,] and salt." 
4 A-0067-22

Section 5.6 of the Agreement also stated that Snowlift "shall provide 

[s]now [r]emoval [s]ervices and [s]now [c]learance [s]ervices in a manner that 

provides a clean and safe environment for the employees and guests that use the 

areas from which snow is removed." Section 5.7 provided Snowlift "shall check 

the condition and performance and make adjustments to the schedule and snow 

removal [and] clearance program to ensure that facilities meet the performance 

standards" of United. 

Beginning March 13, 2017, at 4:00 a.m. and ending at 8:45 p.m. on March 

17, Snowlift performed snow removal and snow clearance services, as approved 

by United, at Terminal C during a nor'easter that brought blizzard conditions 

over portions of New Jersey although EWR remained open. Joseph Ferrucci, a 

vice president at Snowlift, testified that Snowlift did not perform snow or ice 

abatement. Snowlift "pushed or piled" snow out from the left side of concourse 

C-3, gates 130 through 136, toward the designated piling area near gate 130. At 

United's request, Snowlift also removed the snow near gate 130 for melting by 

using a 150-ton melter. Also at United's request, beginning March 14 at 5:00 

a.m. and ending the next day at 3:00 p.m., Snowlift used a pay loader to scrape 

the snow off the ground "because the temperature was cold" and to make sure 

any snow residue was removed. After Snowlift's services were completed, a 
5 A-0067-22

United representative signed the work authorization, indicating the inspection 

and approval of Snowlift's removal and clearance services. According to 

Ferrucci, Snowlift did not provide any spreading materials to the Terminal C 

because "[t]ypically, United provided the application of melting materials at 

their own gates at the terminal." 

Perdomo testified that she was employed as a United ramp supervisor. 

According to Perdomo, at approximately 1:00 a.m. on March 15, she was driving 

a vehicle on the airport ramp transporting United employees to Terminal C, 

concourse C-3 between Gates 134 and 136 to prepare the necessary ground 

equipment and ensure the baggage tug was operational for an inbound flight. 

Perdomo located the airport tug, stopped, and exited the vehicle. While walking 

on the ramp at gate 134, she slipped and fell on "black ice," resulting in injuries. 

During her deposition, Perdomo described the ramp as "snowier" and "icier" 

than the areas shown in photographs taken of gates 105 or 107 at concourse C2 at 9:00 p.m., the night before her fall. Perdomo testified that at the time of the 

incident, there were no snow removal trucks or equipment in the area because 

the snow had been removed by Snowlift. 

In March 2018, Perdomo filed her complaint against Snowlift, asserting 

that her trip and fall was caused by Snowlift's negligence in the "maintenance, 
6 A-0067-22

abatement, removal[,] and remediation of snow and ice on the tarmac of 

Terminal C." The next day, Perdomo amended her complaint, adding the Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) as a defendant. 

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Snowlift provided the 

certification of Thomas Kerrigan, a United senior manager for ground 

equipment maintenance at EWR. Kerrigan certified that in March 2017, he was 

employed as United's ramp service supervisor for Terminal C. In that regard, 

Kerrigan's responsibilities included "coordinating and overseeing United's snow 

and ice removal activities on the ramp or the secure side of the terminal 

building." He stated United hired Snowlift to remove snow from the ramp area 

where plaintiff "allegedly fell." Kerrigan further certified that United did not 

give Snowlift written authorization to perform ice remediation or control. 

Fred Burns was Snowlift's lead supervisor during the nor'easter. He 

testified that Snowlift performed snow removal and clearance services for gates 

134 to 136 between 4:30 a.m. on March 13 and 3:30 p.m. on March 14. Burns 

stated the services rendered by Snowlift did not include any pre-ice spreading 

or any application during this nor'easter. He further testified that Snowlift was 

"never involved" in any kind of ice spraying of any chemical at Terminal C 

during any storm. 
7 A-0067-22

In opposing Snowlift's motion, plaintiff relied on the incident report 

prepared by Port Authority police officer Leonard Hoffman. The report stated 

Hoffman was told that as Perdomo was walking on the ramp; she lost traction 

on the "slippery ground," fell backwards, and hit her head on the ground. 

Hoffman interviewed employees gathered around the gate; none saw Perdomo 

fall. He observed the condition of the "floor" as "[i]cy, [s]nowy, and very 

slippery due to the recent snowstorm." Hoffman initially testified that the 

ground was "wet, icy, [and] slushy" but there was no snow where Perdomo fell. 

He later clarified his testimony, stating that "[it] wasn't like mounds of snow 

. . . it was more turning to, like, slush, and which was really turning to ice . . . ." 

Perdomo also relied on the expert report prepared by Matthew D. Lykins, 

who was retained to investigate and determine whether Snowlift caused or 

contributed to Perdomo's injury. The Lykins report, dated September 13, 2021, 

stated that Perdomo fell as she walked from a vehicle to an aircraft tug near gate 

134 in the C-3 concourse when she fell on the "icy tarmac." Lykins reviewed 

the discovery produced by the parties and the photographs taken by him on his 

tour of the C-3 ramp near gates 130 to 136 on July 16, 2021. In forming his 

opinion, Lykins relied on photographs taken "around the time of plaintiff's fall 

representing a photographic description of the ramp conditions;" however, we 
8 A-0067-22

are unable to discern from the report whether the photographs were of the C-3 

ramp.1 Based on Lykins review of the discovery and the federal aviation 

regulations, he concluded that the combination of the "hazard and exposure" of 

the icy ramp created an unreasonably dangerous condition that caused or 

contributed to Perdomo's fall. Lykins further opined that Snowlift failed to meet 

the safety standards under section 5.7 of the Agreement by failing to: (1) 

adequately inspect the ramp after performing snow clearance near gate 134; and 

(2) identify the hazard of the icy ramp while performing snow clearance. 

Snowlift failed to meet its contractual obligation and notify United of the hazard 

of the icy surface conditions while performing snow clearance. Lastly, Snowlift 

failed to comply with 14 CFR Part 139.313(b)(1)2 to "remove as completely as 

practical" snow, ice, and slush from the ramp. 

1

 Presumably, these are the same photographs identified by Perdomo as gates 

105 or 107 at concourse C-2 taken at 9:00 p.m. the night before her fall. 

2

 14 CFR Part 139.313(b)(1) governs ice and snow control plans at airport. The 

provision states: "The snow and ice control plan required by this section must 

include, at a minimum, instructions[,] and procedures for [p]rompt removal or 

control, as completely as practical, of snow, ice, and slush on each movement 

area." 14 CFR Part 139.5 defines certification holder as an airport operating 

certificate for operation of a class I, II, III, or IV airport. See Certification of 

Airports 69 Fed. Reg. 6425 (Feb. 10, 2004). 
9 A-0067-22

After the close of discovery, the Port Authority moved for, and was 

granted summary judgment, which was not appealed. Snowlift also moved for, 

and was granted summary judgment, which is the basis for this appeal. 

On July 29, 2022, the trial court rendered an oral decision and entered an 

order dismissing Perdomo's complaint with prejudice. In granting summary 

judgment, the trial court concluded Perdomo did not establish that Snowlift 

failed to perform its contractual obligation as set forth in the Agreement with 

United. In rejecting Perdomo's argument that Snowlift was obligated to 

reinspect areas where snow had been cleared or removed, the court explained 

that Snowlift's obligation to Perdomo "beg[an] and flow[ed] with the contract." 

The court found that it was undisputed that Snowlift cleared the snow to the area 

designated by the Agreement and Snowlift's completed work was "signed off" 

by United. The court found there were no disputed facts in the record that 

Snowlift failed to follow the terms of the Agreement. The court further found 

that de-icing of the area was in the "control" of United and the federal regulation 

relied upon by Perdomo's expert applied to United as the certificate holder and 

not to Snowlift. Therefore, based on the language in the Agreement, Snowlift 

was not required to take any further action or reinspection, and no duty extended 

to Perdomo. 
10 A-0067-22

II. 

 On appeal, Perdomo presents the following arguments for our 

consideration: 

POINT I 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED BECAUSE PERDOMO ADVANCED A 

VIABLE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION 

AGAINST SNOWLIFT. 

POINT II 

SNOWLIFT BREACHED ITS WELL-ESTABLISHED 

DUTY TO PERDOMO TO PERFORM ITS SNOW 

REMOVAL WORK IN A REASONABLY SAFE AND 

NON-NEGLIGENT MANNER. 

POINT III 

THERE ARE OTHER EXPRESS DUTIES UNDER 

THE CONTRACT WHICH SNOWLIFT BREACHED 

RESUL[T]ING IN [PERDOMO'S] FALL. 

POINT IV 

THE FACTUAL RECORD CONFIRMS SNOWLIFT 

HAD NOT LEFT THE AREA OF THE FALL AND 

WAS STILL WORKING AT THE TIME OF THE 

FALL. 

POINT V 

SNOWLIFT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE 

CONTROL PURSUANT TO THEIR CONTRACT 

WITH UNITED. 
11 A-0067-22

We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, "applying the 

same standard used by the trial court." Samolyk v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73, 78 

(2022). Based on that standard, we are required to "determine whether 'the 

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, 

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or 

order as a matter of law.'" Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 

(2021) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)). "Summary judgment should be granted . . . 

'against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence 

of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the 

burden of proof at trial.'" Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 472 (2020) 

(quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). We do not defer 

to the trial court's legal analysis or statutory interpretation. RSI Bank v. 

Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 234 N.J. 459, 472 (2018); Perez v. Zagami, LLC, 

218 N.J. 202, 209 (2014). 

"An issue of material fact is 'genuine only if, considering the burden of 

persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the parties on the motion, together 

with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the non-moving party, would 
12 A-0067-22

require submission of the issue to the trier of fact.'" Grande v. St. Clare's Health 

Sys., 230 N.J. 1, 24 (2017) (quoting Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22, 38 (2014)). 

In a negligence action, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving defendant: 

(1) owed a duty of care; (2) breached that duty; (3) proximately caused the 

plaintiff's injuries; and (4) caused actual damages. Shields v. Ramslee Motors, 

240 N.J. 479, 487 (2020) (quoting Robinson v. Vivirito, 217 N.J. 199, 208 

(2014)). "'The question of whether a duty exists is a matter of law properly 

decided by the court, not the jury.'" Carter Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. EMAR 

Group, Inc., 135 N.J. 182, 194 (1994) (internal citation omitted). 

In the context of a snowstorm, our Supreme Court adopted the ongoing 

storm rule in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, holding "commercial 

landowners do not have a duty to remove the accumulation of snow and ice until 

the conclusion of the storm, but unusual circumstances may give rise to a duty 

before then." 246 N.J. 546, 558 (2021). Generally, the determination of a duty 

is considered "a matter of law properly decided by the court." Wang v. Allstate 

Ins. Co., 125 N.J. 2, 15 (1991). 

Perdomo contends Snowlift failed to exercise proper and reasonable care 

in the snow removal services during the nor'easter. She further contends the 

trial court focused exclusively on Snowlift's legal duty but erred in finding that
13 A-0067-22

the legal duty was limited by the Agreement between Snowlift and United, 

resulting in an "artificial and inordinately limited interpretation" of the 

Agreement. We reject Perdomo's contentions. 

Based upon our de novo review, we discern no error of law. At the outset, 

we note Pareja is not applicable to these facts. Perdomo has presented no 

evidence to establish the snow removal and clearance was done in a manner that 

caused or increased the risk of harm to her. Here, the parties do not dispute that 

Snowlift was called to EWR to perform snow removal and clearance services at

United’s Terminal C. The record shows Snowlift performed the contracted 

services for snow removal and clearance at gates 134 to 136 to United's 

satisfaction. The Agreement expressly provided that the control of ice 

abatement or remediation was in the "control" of United. It is also undisputed

that United did not delegate the exercise of its control of ice abatement or

remediation by written request to Snowlift to perform ice abatement or

remediation for the 2017 nor'easter. Therefore, we agree with the trial court's

holding that Snowlift did not owe a contractual duty to Perdomo. Therefore, 

summary judgment was properly granted in the absence of any genuine issue of

material fact. 
14 A-0067-22

To the extent we have not expressly addressed any of Perdomo's 

remaining arguments, we find they are without sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.