You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL...
, ,

PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff firefighter’s motion for summary judgment in this General Municipal Law 205-a, Labor Law 27-a slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he fell because of a gap in a grate at the Homeport Pier. The court noted that the plaintiff’s own submissions raised triable issues of fact about whether the gap was the result of defendant’s (the city’s) negligence:

General Municipal Law § 205-a(1) provides a right of action for firefighters who are injured “as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence” of a defendant “in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments.” To make out a valid claim under General Municipal Law § 205-a, a plaintiff must ” [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the firefighter was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to the firefighter'” … .

… [T]he only statute, ordinance, or rule identified by the plaintiff which could support the imposition of liability pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-a under the facts of this case was Labor Law § 27-a  …. Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) provides that every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that are “free from recognized hazards” that cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. This statute may serve as a predicate for a cause of action alleging a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-a … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that the gap in the grates was a result of negligence by the City. His submissions included evidence that (1) the Homeport Pier was inspected regularly, (2) gaps in the grates were sometimes caused by expansion and contraction of the metal and shifting due to vehicles driving over them, (3) any gaps over an inch were rectified when discovered during regular inspections, and (4) the Homeport Pier and the grates were inspected within two days prior to the plaintiff’s accident. Shea v New York City Economic Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03164, Second Dept 5-2-18

​NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW  (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A DOCTOR ORDERED THE RESTRAINT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENCE, WAS THE APPROPRIATE THEORY; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2 1/2 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
STORM IN PROGRESS RULE DID NOT APPLY, STORM STOPPED 12 HOURS BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL 2ND DEPT.
THE HOMEOWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY TO BE LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SCAFFOLD COLLAPSE (SECOND DEPT).
ANONYMOUS 911 CALL WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE OR AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE TOOK POSSESSION OF THE VICTIM’S GUN AND FIRED AFTER THE VICTIM FIRED AT HIM; DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, ATTEMPTED ASSAULT AND ASSAULT BUT CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON “TEMPORARY LAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON;” NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
STATING THE WRONG DATE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM RENDERED THE NOTICE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND THE 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM, RENDERING THE CLAIM FILED MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF LATER UNTIMELY; THE DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF CROSSED INTO DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING LANE TO PASS A MAIL TRUCK, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT REACTED REASONABLY TO AN EMERGENCY; TWO OTHER CARS HAD ENTERED DEFENDANT’S LANE TO GO AROUND THE TRUCK JUST BEFORE THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 APPLIED ONLY TO HIGH-COST OR SUBPRIME LOANS WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED ON APPEAL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND... IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT...