You are here: / / DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER...
, , ,

DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant home owner’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 action should have been granted. Defendant was not home when plaintiff fell through an open hole in the deck while removing a window. The defendant demonstrated he did not have any control over the manner of plaintiff’s work and did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Supreme Court should not have considered the affidavit of a nonparty who was not previously disclosed as a witness who had actual notice of the condition.

… [T]he defendant established, prima facie, that he did not exercise supervision or control over the performance of the work giving rise to the accident … . Further, to the extent that the accident could be viewed as arising from a dangerous or defective premises condition at the work site, the defendant established, prima facie, that he did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to consider the affidavit of a nonparty witness submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendant’s motion. In his discovery demands, the defendant sought disclosure of, inter alia, the name of any witness who had actual notice of the alleged condition, or the nature and duration of such condition. The nonparty witness was not disclosed in the plaintiffs’ discovery responses, the plaintiffs failed to offer an excuse for their failure to do so, and nothing that transpired during discovery would have alerted the defendant of the potential significance of the nonparty’s testimony … . Casilari v Condon, 2020 NY Slip Op 04146, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AT THE TIME THE ACTION AGAINST THEM WAS COMMENCED; THAT ACTION WAS A NULLITY; THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE THE EXECUTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
School’s Duty to Supervise the Child Had Ended When the Child Was Struck by a Car Just Outside the School Building/City Is Immune from Liability for Alleged Negligent Traffic Control—No “Special Relationship” with the Child
PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT MET; ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SHAREHOLDERS OR EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).
Analytical Criteria for Stipulation of Settlement Which Is Incorporated But Not Merged
THE DISMISSAL OF A FORELCOSURE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS NOT AN EXPRESS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION DID NOT VALIDLY ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE, HERE, THE 2013 FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (SECOND DEPT).
STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS; $2500 PENALTY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 18, TO DRIVE HIS LAMBORGHINI WHILE DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT LOST CONTROL AT 180 MPH, STRUCK A GUARD RAIL, WAS EJECTED AND DIED FROM HIS INJURIES; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT, RAISED BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE WHICH RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S USE OF THE CAR UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY’S DELAY IN NOTIFYING THE... THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR...