You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION...
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION WORK NEXT DOOR TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING; NYC BUILDING CODE 3309.4 IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SUCH EXCAVATION WORK; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT NEED TO SHOW EITHER THAT A LICENSE WAS GRANTED OR THAT PLAINTIFFS TOOK OTHER STEPS TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE SECTION 3309.4 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, overruling precedent, determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in this action alleging damage to plaintiffs’ building caused by defendants’ excavation for a new building next door. The New York City Building Code (BC) section 3309.4 imposes strict liability for damage caused by such excavation work. Here the defendants did not ask plaintiffs for a license in accordance with BC 3309.4 and no license was granted by the plaintiffs. Prior decisions held a plaintiff must show it granted a license for the work, or otherwise took steps to protect the property, before the plaintiff would be entitled to summary judgment on an action alleging a violation of BC 33309.4. Those decisions should no longer be followed:

We hold that where, as here, a plaintiff presents evidence showing, prima facie, that no request for a license was made to the plaintiff in accordance with section BC 3309 before the excavation work began, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability on a cause of action alleging a violation of section BC 3309.4 need not demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff granted the requisite license, or, in the absence of a license, what, if any, actions it took to protect its premises. 211-12 N. Blvd. Corp. v LIC Contr., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04134, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

You might also like
THE NEGOTIATED PLEA REQUIRED NO POST-PLEA ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AFTER THE PLEA BUT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS AND THE RECORDS SEALED; THE POST-PLEA ARRESTS WERE THEREFORE A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SENTENCING JUDGE (SECOND DEPT). ​
AUDIOTAPES OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER AND THE CHILD WERE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THEY WERE THE PRODUCT OF ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING UNDER CPLR 4506 (SECOND DEPT).
LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, SERVED THREE YEARS AFTER THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DELAYED CHILD’S BIRTH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CLASS—LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY POWER OUTAGES CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY—SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT 2ND CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE DEFENDANT’S NON-LAWYER HUSBAND REPRESENTED HER AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL; THE FACT THAT THE HUSBAND HAD A POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING HIM TO ACT ON HIS WIFE’S BEHALF DID NOT AUTHORIZE HIM TO PRACTICE LAW; ALTHOUGH REPRESENTATION BY A NON-LAWYER DOES NOT RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS A “NULLITY,” HERE THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY HER HUSBAND’S REPRESENTATION AND THE JUDGE ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING THE HUSBAND TO TESTIFY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY.

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

FORMER LAW FIRM PARTNER WAS ENTITLED TO AN ACCOUNTING; IN DETERMINING THE BUYOUT... ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED...