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
INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
Source of Information in Police Report Unknown—Reversible Error to Admit Hearsay in the Report
PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Where Deportation As a Result of a Guilty Plea Is Not Mentioned by the Court, Preservation of the Error Is Not Required
ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT DESCRIBED THE RESIDENCE AS HAVING TWO ENTRANCE DOORS, ONE LEADING TO THE AREA WHERE THE INFORMANT SAW THE FIREARMS AND ONE LEADING TO A STAIRWAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR (WHICH THE INFORMANT HAD NOT VISITED), THE WARRANT WAS NOT SEVERABLE AND WAS THEREFORE OVERBROAD (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT SUBMITTED.
Although There Was Evidence the Plaintiff Failed to Yield the Right-of-Way, There Was a Triable Question of Fact Whether Defendant Could Have Taken Steps to Avoid the Collision
Owner of Restaurant Not Liable for Parking-Lot Assault on Plaintiff by Another Patron

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...