You are here: / / HEARSAY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION...
, ,

HEARSAY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; THE INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER GRAVE INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 11 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined hearsay was not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) case. In addition the indemnification and contribution claims were properly dismissed because plaintiff did not suffer a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law 11:

Plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) seeking to recover for personal injuries he sustained when, while dismantling a scaffold in an elevator shaft of a building under renovation, he fell from the scaffold to the bottom of the shaft. … Plaintiff testified that his employer had instructed him to dismantle the scaffold and the sole support for Empire’s contention that dismantling the scaffold was outside the scope of his duties was inadmissible hearsay testimony. …

Pursuant to their contract, Empire agreed to indemnify Pen & Brush for damages, “arising from any act, omission, negligence, potential claims and losses” of, inter alia, Empire or its subcontractors “during the performance of the Contract.” Its indemnification obligation was triggered here where plaintiff’s injuries arose from the act of Empire’s subcontractor, Lough Allen, in dismantling the scaffold and a finding of negligence is not required … .

Supreme Court properly determined plaintiff had not sustained a grave injury and dismissed the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Lough Allen … . As relevant here, “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 includes “an acquired injury to the brain caused by external physical force resulting in permanent total disability.” Permanent total disability in the context of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 means unemployable in any capacity … . Clarke v Empire Gen. Contr. & Painting Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07698, First Dept 12-22-20

 

You might also like
PETITIONER ALLEGED HIS ARREST WARRANT WAS BASED UPON FALSE ATTESTATIONS AND SOUGHT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLEGING FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; THE CITY WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ACTION BY VIRTUE OF THE CITY-PERSONNEL’S INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING THE WARRANT AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTS; THE REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A BICYCLIST, WAS STRUCK BY A TRUCK WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DIRECTING THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Plaintiff’s Double-Parked Vehicle Furnished a Condition for the Accident But Was Not a Proximate Cause of the Acciden
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF NYPD DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE FOIL REQUESTS FOR THE DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN DENIED.
A PRE-JOINDER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT, IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY, SAID SHE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; AT THAT POINT THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE SURE SHE WAS AWARE SHE WAS WAIVING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR WAS A PROXIMATE... AN EXCEPTION TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED, ALLOWING TESTIMONY DESCRIBING...