You are here: / / NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY...

NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the building owner (Grand) and the prospective purchaser of the building (Empire) should have been dismissed. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor which apparently had just been mopped by a co-worker. Neither Grand nor Empire had general supervisory authority over the premises and did not supervise or control the work of plaintiff or the co-worker:

The building was owned by defendant Grand but was under a contract of sale to defendant Empire, with a closing date of February 1, 2017. Under the contract of sale, Empire was given access to the premises prior to closing to perform renovations and to stage and lease the apartments. Empire hired plaintiff’s employer Infinity to act as general contractor for the renovations. According to the record, Empire did not have any employees at the premises on the date of the accident and did not supervise Infinity’s work. Grand had no employees or agents at the premises full time, but an employee of a company related to Grand would occasionally visit the building to check that there were no problems and that everything was clean. The employee visited the building approximately four or five times, approximately twice in the four months prior to the accident, and once during construction. No one employed by Grand regularly supervised the construction ongoing at the premises. Arnold v Empire 326 Grand LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00965, First Dept 2-15-22

 

You might also like
Release Applied to Claims Unknown at the Time the Release Was Signed and to Claims Among Parties on the Same Side of the Underlying Lawsuit
AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS A-FRAME LADDER-FALL CASE; ALTHOUGH NO DEPOSITIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN, THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR WORK ON THE AREA OF THE FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES WHO HAD NOT BEEN DEPOSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED.
AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
THE INFANCY TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 208 APPLIES TO A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WHERE THE SOLE DISTUBUTEES ARE INFANTS; THE TOLL, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY TO A RELATED ASSAULT AND BATTERY ACTION WHICH IS PERSONAL TO THE DECEDENT (FRIST DEPT).
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE REQUIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT, UNDER THE COMMON LAW, UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE AS LONG AS THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND (FIRST DEPT).
Landlord Not Entitled to Reformation of a Lease—Landlord Had Failed to Use Due Diligence Before Signing and Did Not Notice a Deletion Made by Plaintiff—Plaintiff Was Not Obligated to Highlight the Deletion

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE... SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED...