You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WORKING FOR A SUBSIDIARY OF VERIZON, WAS INJURED LAYING A CABLE...
, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, WORKING FOR A SUBSIDIARY OF VERIZON, WAS INJURED LAYING A CABLE UNDER A CITY STREET; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND VERIZON AND/OR THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY PERMIT RENDERED THE CITY A PROPER DEFENDANT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, over a two-justice dissent, determined the City was not entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law case. Plaintiff was working for a subsidiary of Verizon (Empire City) laying a conduit in a trench in the street when a backhoe pushed a metal plate onto his foot. The City argued it was not an owner under the Labor Law, had no notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and there was no nexus between the City and and the work performed by Verizon. The majority held there were questions of fact about the existence of a franchise agreement between the City and Verizon, and whether a permit for the work had been issued by the City. Although the “lack of a nexus” argument was raised for the first time in reply, the majority held the issue raised a question of law and was properly considered by the motion court:

The witness’s lack of knowledge renders his testimony inconclusive and speculative as to whether Empire City was working without a permit on the day plaintiff was injured, warranting denial of summary judgment … . * * *

… [T]here remain triable issues of fact as to whether there existed a nexus between plaintiff and the City … . Furthermore, plaintiff sought certified copies of the franchise agreements for both Verizon and Empire City as part of discovery and defendant failed to provide them. Thus, the City’s challenge to the franchise documentation as being unauthenticated should have been rejected by the court, as copies of the documents remained in defendant’s exclusive possession and control but were not provided to plaintiff …  Powell v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03843, First Dept 7-17-23

Practice Point: The plaintiff was employed by a subsidiary of Verizon and was injured laying a conduit in a trench under a City street. The City claimed it had no nexus to the work done by Verizon. The majority held questions of fact about the existence of a franchise agreement between the City and Verizon and the issuance of a permit by the City precluded summary judgment in favor of the City. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

You might also like
IN A FORECLOSURE CONTEXT, THE BANK, WHEN MOVING FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, GETS TWO CHANCES TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY; IF THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS DEEMED INADEQUATE, THE BANK MUST BE ALLOWED TO TRY AGAIN (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) IS A “POLICY ISSUE” WARRANTING DENIAL OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR RETALIATORY TERMINATION CLAIM PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICES LAW 75-b.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT TO ESPINAL FACTORS, FOR INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE FACTS, PLAINTIFF CAN ASSERT A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT, EVEN THOUGH BOTH ARE SIGNATORIES TO THE MULTILATERAL CONTRACTS; THE PARTIES HAVE DIFFERENT RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE CONTRACTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE ISSUE WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT OBJECTIONS TO CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS BE RULED ON WITHIN 15 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; THE 15-DAY RULE IS MANDATORY AND MUST BE ENFORCED; THE MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BECAUSE HER ACTION WAS THE CATALYST FOR THIS DECISION (FIRST DEPT).
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS; THEREFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S FINDING THAT THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT BINDING ON THE THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS (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

AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE A CONTRACT COVERS... AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR AUTHORIZE...