You are here: / / DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY SUFFERED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHAT...
,

DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY SUFFERED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO–REPAIR AN ELEVATOR; ISSUE CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 and common law negligence action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured doing the work he was hired to do—repairing an elevator. The issue was considered even though it was first raised on appeal. In addition, defendants were entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from liability pursuant to Labor Law 240(1):

We find merit to the defendants’ contention—raised for the first time on appeal but fully briefed by both sides … —that the injured plaintiff cannot succeed in his causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as “[n]o responsibility rests upon an owner of real property to one hurt through a dangerous condition which he [or she] has undertaken to fix”… . Indeed, the evidence in the record conclusively establishes that the injury-producing accident was caused by an unidentified defect in the very elevator that the injured plaintiff’s employer had been hired to repair. Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

… The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The homeowner’s exemption to liability under Labor Law § 240(1) is available to “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.” Here, the defendants, as owners of the single-family townhouse where the accident occurred, established, prima facie, that they did not direct or control the home improvement work being done by the injured plaintiff and his employer at the time of the subject accident … . Soto v Justin Hochberg 2014 Irrevocable Trust, 2022 NY Slip Op 01193, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

You might also like
Tax Assessment Reductions Can Be Sought Solely through a Tax Certiorari Proceeding Under the Real Property Tax Law, Not Through an Article 78 Proceeding
THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT THAT MOTHER IN THIS CHILD-SUPPORT PROCEEDING WAS INFORMED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL, HER RIGHT TO AN ADJOURNMENT TO RETAIN COUNSEL, OR HER WAIVER OF THAT RIGHT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT UNDULY SUGGESTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CRIME, I.E., THE SHOOTING OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN DEFENDANTS’ BUILDING, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEABLE, THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DOOR SECURITY WAS DEFICIENT AND THEREFORE WAS A CONCURRENT FACTOR IN THE SHOOTING (SECOND DEPT).
Subcontractor Which Supervised Plaintiff’s Work Was An Agent for the General Contractor
MOTHER, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HERSELF IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE JUDGE’S (1) COMMENCING THE HEARING WITHOUT HER, (2) SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING HER FROM THE COURTROOM, (3) DENYING HER REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, (4) AND DENYING HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO CONSULT WITH HER LEGAL ADVISOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
RARE CASE WHERE EVIDENCE OF A ROUTINE PROCEDURE FOR KEEPING A PARKING LOT FREE OF ICE AND SNOW, COMBINED WITH PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT INSTRUCT THE DECEDENT TO REVOKE... PETITIONER, A COURT OFFICER, SLIPPED AND FELL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE COURTHOUSE;...