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
PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE.
DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS WARRANTING STRIKING ITS ANSWER (FIRST DEPT).
THE INSURED DID NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SCHEDULED INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMS IN THIS NO-FAULT POLICY CASE, ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IRRATIONALLY IGNORED THE CONTROLLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT).
Passenger in Recreational Go-Kart Assumed the Risk of Injury Caused by Being “Bumped” by Another Go-Kart
Re: a Third-Party Settlement, Consent of Special Fund Required Before Carrier Entitled to Reimbursement from Special Fund
LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK; HERE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE TOP OF A TRACTOR-TRAILER; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM A LEDGE OUTSIDE HIS HOTEL ROOM; HOTEL STAFF DID NOT ASSUME A DUTY OF CARE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; A DELAY AFTER A FAMILY MEMBER’S REQUEST THAT HOTEL STAFF CALL THE POLICE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERT OPINION TO HAVE CAUSED THE SUICIDE (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...