You are here: / / THE PAVING CONTRACTOR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT...
, ,

THE PAVING CONTRACTOR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (A LIP OR HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THE ROAD SURFACE) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEGATE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT CONTRACTORS ARE GENERALLY NOT LIABLE TO THIRD PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant paving company (DeBartolo) failed to eliminate a question of fact about whether it created the dangerous condition (i.e., launched the instrument of harm) which is alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The complaint alleged DeBartolo paved over existing pavement, created the height-differential over which plaintiff tripped. Although a contractor like DeBartolo ordinarily does not owe a duty of care to a third party who is not a party to the contract, the so-called Espinal exceptions apply when a contractor is alleged to have “launched an instrument of harm.” Once that theory of liability is alleged, the contractor seeking summary judgment must present evidence negating the allegation which DeBartolo failed to do:

… [T]he plaintiffs pleaded in their amended complaint and bill of particulars that DeBartolo Landscaping created the alleged dangerous condition that caused the injured plaintiff to fall as a result of, among other things, failing to properly repave the area. Therefore, DeBartolo Landscaping, in support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, had to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the dangerous or defective condition alleged (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 140 …). * * * … [The] evidence reveals … that DeBartolo Landscaping resurfaced Shady Glen Court in the area of the crosswalk prior to the subject accident, and that the resurfacing, which involved the application of new asphalt on top of the existing pavement, immediately resulted in a lip or elevation differential at the seam between the existing pavement and new asphalt. Thus, this evidence failed to demonstrate that Debartolo Landscaping did not create the alleged dangerous condition that caused the injured plaintiff to fall … . Camelio v Shady Glen Owners’ Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04105, Second Dept 8-2-23

Practice Point: Generally contractors are not liable to persons who are not parties to the contract. However, under the Espinal case, contractors can be liable to third persons if they “launch an instrument of harm.” If, as here, the plaintiff alleges the contractor launched an instrument of harm, the contractor must negate that allegation to be entitled to summary judgment. Here the proof did not negate the applicability of the Espinal exception.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE OWNER, HERE A CAR DEALERSHIP, IS USUALLY VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT CAUSED BY A DRIVER OPERATING THE VEHICLE WITH THE OWNER’S PERMISSION, HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER, WHO WAS TEST DRIVING THE VEHICLE, EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF THE PERMISSION (SECOND DEPT).
Court Has Discretion to Grant a Recess to Allow a Conference Between a Lawyer and a Testifying Witness
Frye Hearing to Determine Acceptance of Paraphilia NOS Diagnosis Required
Amendment to Notice of Claim to Add Second Hospital Should Have Been Allowed
A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS HERE, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DUE AND THE DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Elements of Fraud, Money Had and Received, and Unjust Enrichment Explained
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON A SCAFFOLD HE WAS ERECTING BROKE (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LYFT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A LYFT DRIVER;... THE DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS...