You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTORS WHICH DID SIDEWALK/GRATE WORK LAUNCHED...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTORS WHICH DID SIDEWALK/GRATE WORK LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE CONTRACTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the actions against two contractors (MPM and VRD) which did sidewalk/grate work should not have been dismissed in this slip and fall case. The two contractor defendants did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that they did not launch an instrument of harm:

In general, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138). Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm . . . (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties . . . and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other’s party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Here, the owner, MPM, and VRD failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the work performed on the grate and vault did not create the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff to trip and fall and, thus, launched a force or instrument of harm … . Randazzo v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08236, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

You might also like
Either Possession of the Note or an Assignment of the Note Confers Standing
APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DEPRESSION OR HOLE PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO, AREA WAS COVERED WITH GRASS AND APPEARED TO BE LEVEL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
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).
City Failed to Affirmatively Prove It Did Not Have Notice of Dangerous Condition
​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SECOND MOTION DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW OR AN ALLOWABLE SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE; THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTED DEFENDANT WAS THE VICTIM OF A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD; SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (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

EXPERT’S OPINION THAT DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK/MANHOLE... STACKED BOXES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP...