You are here: / / OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL...
,

OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER’S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Pioneer Middle School was not an additional insured under the policy which insured of the employer (Kleanerz) of Ayers, who slipped and fell on ice and snow in the Pioneer Middle School parking law:

We conclude that Pioneer is not an additional insured under the policy inasmuch as Ayers's injuries were not proximately caused by Kleanerz. The policy's additional insured endorsement provides that the injury must have been “caused, in whole or in part, by” Kleanerz's conduct, and thus it requires that the insured must have been a proximate cause of the injury, not merely a “but for” cause … . Here, it is undisputed that Kleanerz was not responsible for clearing ice and snow from the parking lot and that Ayers's fall resulted from her slipping on the ice or snow. Although Pioneer contends that Kleanerz caused the accident by instructing Ayers to exit Pioneer Middle School through a door located near the area where Ayers subsequently slipped, Kleanerz's instructions to Ayers “merely furnished the occasion for the injury” by “fortuitously plac[ing Ayers] in a location or position in which . . . [an alleged] separate instance of negligence acted independently upon [her] to produce harm” … , and were not a cause of the accident triggering the additional insured clause of the policy. Pioneer Cent. Sch. Dist. v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06682, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

INSURANCE LAW (OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER'S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER'S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT))/ADDITIONAL INSURED (INSURANCE LAW, OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER'S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
HERE THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT HAD ORDERED A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL RECORD WAS WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS PROPERLY DONE AND AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; THE DISSENT TOOK ISSUE WITH NATURE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE ORDER OF PROTECTION BY GOING INSIDE THE PROTECTED PERSON’S HOUSE, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ANY CONTACT WITH THE PROTECTED PERSON; CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST CONVICTION REDUCED TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER WAS NOT SECURED AND WAS “IMPROPERLY PLACED” WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
Concurrent Inclusory Counts Dismissed Despite Lack of Preservation
THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE REQUIRED FACTORS WHEN SENTENCING DEFENDANT AFTER DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF INTERIM PROBATION; SENTENCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT WAS ALLEGED, DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM CONDUCTING A NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION (NPE) OF PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY (FOURTH DEPT).
Possession of Modest Amount of Drugs Is Not Sufficient to Make Out a Prima Facie Case of an Intent to Sell

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

FATHER COULD NOT BE FOUND TO HAVE PERMANENTLY NEGLECTED THE CHILDREN AND ALSO... FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY...