You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff had complied with the relevant regulations such that summary judgment was warranted in this excavation-damage action:

New York City Building Code … § BC 3309.4 provides that “[w]henever soil or foundation work occurs, regardless of the depth of such, the person who causes such to be made shall, at all times during the course of such work and at his or her own expense, preserve and protect from damage any adjoining structures, including but not limited to footings and foundations, provided such person is afforded a license in accordance with the requirements of Section 3309.2 to enter and inspect the adjoining buildings and property, and to perform such work thereon as may be necessary for such purpose. If the person who causes the soil or foundation work is not afforded a license, such duty to preserve and protect the adjacent property shall devolve to the owner of such adjoining property, who shall be afforded a similar license with respect to the property where the soil or foundation work is to be made.”

We have held that section 3309.4 imposes strict or absolute liability upon a ” person who causes’ an excavation to be made” … . Nonetheless, on this record, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against [defendant], as the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that she granted [the defendant] the requisite license under section 3309.4 … or, in the absence of a license, what, if any, actions the plaintiff took to satisfy her duty under section 3309.4 to protect and preserve her property … . Chan v Begum, 2017 NY Slip Op 06425, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (NYC, EXCAVATION DAMAGE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, EXCAVATION PROPERTY DAMAGE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)/EXCAVATION DAMAGE (REAL PROPERTY, NYC, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE UNIVERSITY REVIEW BOARD’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE STUDENT CODE BY ENGAGING IN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT REVERSED, VIOLATIONS DISMISSED, RECORD EXPUNGED; THERE WAS A DISSENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Warrantless Search of Parolee’s Car by Detective Was Valid–Detective Was Effectively Functioning As a Parole Officer, Was Aware of an Arrest Warrant Based Upon Defendant’s Alleged Parole Violations, and Was Aware the Defendant, as a Parolee, Had Consented In Writing to the Search of His Person and Property
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS UNAVOIDABLY DELAYED IN GETTING TO COURT AND SO INFORMED THE JUDGE; IN DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ABSENCE A JUROR REQUESTED TO BE DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THE SUDDEN DEATH OF HER FRIEND’S SON; THE DISCHARGE OF THE JUROR WITHOUT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CONSENT REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROAD DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PETITIONER-BUS-DRIVER’S ACCIDENT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF PETITIONER’S ACCIDENT, INJURIES OR THE FACTS UNDERLYING HER THEORY OF LIABILITY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT OCCURRED CLOSE IN TIME TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST ON THE STREET AND WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BACKPACK WAS WITHIN THE GRABBABLE AREA AND NO PROOF OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FOOT UNDER A TIRE-WHEEL STOP IN A PARKING LOT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE WHEEL STOP WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN AN INTERSECTION ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
Language of Exclusion from Coverage, Including the Phrase “Arising Out Of” Was Not Ambiguous—Insurer Was Not Obligated to Defend or Indemnify Defendants

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

COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE... SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO...