You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON A ROOF WHEN HE ALLEGEDLY CONTACTED AN ELECTRIC...
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON A ROOF WHEN HE ALLEGEDLY CONTACTED AN ELECTRIC WIRE LEADING TO THE HOME AND WAS KILLED; THE UTILITIES’ (CON EDISON’S) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ON THE GROUND IT OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the Con Edison defendants in this electrocution case should not have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff was working on a roof when he alleged came into contact with an electric wire attached to the home and was killed. Con Edison argued it did not owe a duty to plaintiff’s decedent:

“[T]he existence and scope of a duty is a question of law requiring courts to balance sometimes competing public policy considerations” …. Contrary to Con Edison’s contention, it failed to establish that it owed no duty to the decedent … . Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff alleged that Con Edison authorized the installation of an improper and non code-compliant connection between its electrical lines and the homeowner’s electrical system, such actions gave rise to Con Edison’s duty to the decedent who reasonably could be expected to come into contact with the property’s electrical wires … . Thus, Con Edison did not establish that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for negligence. Sucre v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03377, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT HAVE A STOP SIGN AND HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE COLLISION WITH DEFENDANT WHO HAD ENTERED THE INTERSECTION AFTER STOPPING AT A STOP SIGN (SECOND DEPT).
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.
NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK’S MENTAL HEALTH PARITY LAW (TIMOTHY’S LAW) (SECOND DEPT).
Authenticity of Document Not Demonstrated
DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION OR EXCAVATION, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) NOT APPLICABLE.
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST CALCULATION WAS DONE USING THE METHOD REQUIRED BY THE NOTE AND THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT LAID; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A GOOD EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY; THE MOTION HAD MERIT, DID NOT PRESENT ANY NEW THEORIES AND SOUGHT TO NARROW THE ISSUES FOR TRIAL (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

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE; DEFENDANT...