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
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS NO EXPRESS INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE AND THE FLO0R-CLEANING DEFENDANTS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE FLOOR-CLEANING DEFENDANTS WERE NEGLIGENT OR CAUSED THE INJURY; THEREFORE THE GROCERY STORE’S INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Sufficiently Allege Colorado Defendant Had Purposefully Transacted Business In New York—Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Should Have Been Granted
PLAINTIFF, ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED A DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AFFORDED BY CPLR 205(A) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DIDN’T REACH THE LIABILITY ISSUE, THE MERITS WERE LITIGATED AND BRIEFED ALLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
To Be Entitled to Summary Judgment on a Labor Law 200 Cause of Action, the Defendant Must Demonstrate the Defendant (1) Did Not Control the Plaintiff’s Work and (2) Did Not Create or Have Constructive Knowledge of the Dangerous Condition
DEFENDANT WAS A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF SOLE OWNERSHIP; DEFENDANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE RECORD OWNER AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE UNRECORDED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RECORD OWNER AND PLAINTIFF WHO RESIDED ON THE PROPERTY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A NOTICE OF PENDENCY BEFORE DEFENDANT RECORDED THE DEED HAD NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
Grabbing and Spinning a Person Does Not Constitute Unlawful Imprisonment​
CORRIDOR FORMED BY LUMBER AND MATERIALS PILED ON EITHER SIDE WAS A PASSAGEWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, DEFENDANT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6).

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...