You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA WHERE CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WAS NOT ON...

ALTHOUGH THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA WHERE CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WAS NOT ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT NEXUS BETWEEN THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA AND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SUCH THAT CLAIMANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT EXTENDED TO THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the parking area where claimant was injured had a “sufficient nexus” with the construction site. Therefore claimant’s injury, incurred pulling the gate to the parking/storage area, arose from petitioner’s employment:

Although the parking area where claimant was injured was not part of the construction site, and notwithstanding the fact that the injury occurred after claimant’s shift had ended for the day, claimant’s uncontradicted testimony demonstrates that he was instructed to park in that area. Moreover, because claimant also testified without contradiction that the general contractor stored building materials in the at-issue area and restricted the public’s access to that area, there was a sufficient nexus in time and place between the construction site and the parking area such that claimant’s place of employment — i.e. the construction site — extended to the parking area where claimant’s injury occurred, and “claimant was [thus] exposed to a risk not shared by the public generally” … . Matter of Espinoza v City Safety Compliance Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05172, Third Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: The Third Department determined the parking/storage area across from the construction site should be considered part of claimant’s place of employment. Therefore, his injury, which stemmed from claimant’s opening or closing the gate to the parking/storage area, arose from his employment.

 

You might also like
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION RULING IN PEOPLE V BOONE APPLIES RETROACTIVELY, HOWEVER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS (SECOND DEPT).
REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITHIN STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Mistaken Classification of Property Resulting In a Much Too Large Tax Bill Was a “Clerical Error” Which Could Be Corrected by the City Department of Finance—No Need for Property Owner to Commence a Tax Certiorari Proceeding
NEW THEORY PRESENTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
Causes of Action Against City Alleging Negligence In Responding to a 911 Call and In Preparing for and Responding to a Snow Storm Which Blocked Roads Should Have Been Dismissed—Only Governmental Functions Were Involved and there Was No Special Relationship between the City and Plaintiffs’ Decedent

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

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, VERIZON, THREATENED LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON A NON-COMPETE... THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED...