You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner was not liable to plaintiff, an employee of the contractor defendant hired to replace a staircase. Plaintiff was injured by a protruding screw attached to the new staircase:

… [D]efendant established prima facie that he did not create the allegedly unsafe condition in the unfinished staircase … . Although defendant testified that he tried to repair the old staircase before hiring the contractor, the uncontradicted evidence showed that the contractor removed the old staircase and that plaintiff was injured on a screw attached to the new staircase. The new staircase was built entirely by the contractor.

… [P]laintiff’s testimony that defendant gave the contractor instructions on where to place the staircase and general instructions on how he wanted the construction to proceed does not, without more, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant created the condition. On the contrary, the mere retention of general supervisory powers over an independent contractor, as opposed to the giving of specific directions on how to do the work, cannot form a basis for the imposition of liability against the principal …

There is … no evidence in the record that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition in the unfinished staircase, as the protruding screw was not visible and apparent, nor is there any evidence showing that it existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit defendant to discover and remedy it … . Lara v Kadir, 2022 NY Slip Op 00504, First Dept 1-27-22

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.
Judicial Hearing Officer Does Not Have Power to Find Non-Witness Guilty of Contempt
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, DEFENDANT ALLEGED COUNSEL’S ADVICE ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS ERRONEOUS 1ST DEPT.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER WAS SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING THE FATHER’S CONTACT WITH HER AND THE CHILDREN; THE PROOF IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST MOTHER DID NOT MATCH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION; THE JUDGE EFFECTIVELY AMENDED THE PETITION BY IMPROPERLY CONFORMING THE PETITION TO SERIOUSLY CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY PROOF; MOTHER WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY ADDRESS THE “AMENDED” PETITION; NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to Recover Payment Made to a Limited Partner Time-Barred by Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA)
ALTHOUGH VACATUR OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 5015, VACATUR WAS AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 317.
“Bankruptcy” Exclusion in a Political Risk Insurance Policy Applied—Insurer Not Obligated to Cover Loss Occasioned by Bankruptcy Proceedings in Mexico

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

THIRD-DEGREE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (PENAL LAW 220.16 (12)) IS... THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE WHICH HAD BEEN...