You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff,...
,

Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether a building manager (Milford) who hired a window washing service (Red Cap) could be liable for injury to a pedestrian (plaintiff) struck by a piece of window-washing equipment which fell. Although Red Cap was an independent contractor, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether Milford owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiff because the work it hired Red Cap to do was inherently dangerous (in the absence of warning signs and pedestrian barriers) and whether the building management services contract between Milford and the building-owner (S & P) was sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive to create a duty running to plaintiff. The court noted that the property owners were not liable because ownership and control of the building (on the property) had been transferred (to the building-owner):

Milford established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that Red Cap was an independent contractor and, thus, it could not be held liable for Red Cap’s negligent acts …, and that, as S & P’s contractual managing agent, it owed no duty to the plaintiff … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether Milford owed a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff because it knew or had reason to know that the work it hired Red Cap to perform was inherently dangerous to pedestrians in the absence of warning signs or barriers on the sidewalk below the window-washing apparatus …, and whether the property management services agreement with S & P was sufficiently comprehensive and exclusive so as support a duty running to the plaintiff … . Baek v Red Cap Servs., Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04794, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT HIRED BECAUSE HE TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA WHEN HE WAS UNDER TREATMENT WITH MARIJUANA; THAT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL.
AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S INTERFERENCE IN AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEFENSE SUMMATION AND IMPROPER EXCLUSION AND ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, ALTHOUGH HE WAS INFORMED THE SENTENCE PROMISE WAS CONDITIONED UPON NO FURTHER ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE SENTENCING AND AN ENHANCED SENTENCE, INCLUDING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WAS IMPOSED; PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; ERROR APPEALABLE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Demolition of Building Without Notice or Opportunity to Be Heard Was a Proper... Presumption Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent (Vehicle...