You are here: / / DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER...
, , ,

DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant home owner’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 action should have been granted. Defendant was not home when plaintiff fell through an open hole in the deck while removing a window. The defendant demonstrated he did not have any control over the manner of plaintiff’s work and did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Supreme Court should not have considered the affidavit of a nonparty who was not previously disclosed as a witness who had actual notice of the condition.

… [T]he defendant established, prima facie, that he did not exercise supervision or control over the performance of the work giving rise to the accident … . Further, to the extent that the accident could be viewed as arising from a dangerous or defective premises condition at the work site, the defendant established, prima facie, that he did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to consider the affidavit of a nonparty witness submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendant’s motion. In his discovery demands, the defendant sought disclosure of, inter alia, the name of any witness who had actual notice of the alleged condition, or the nature and duration of such condition. The nonparty witness was not disclosed in the plaintiffs’ discovery responses, the plaintiffs failed to offer an excuse for their failure to do so, and nothing that transpired during discovery would have alerted the defendant of the potential significance of the nonparty’s testimony … . Casilari v Condon, 2020 NY Slip Op 04146, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

You might also like
WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE PARTY WANTS VENUE CHANGED, AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE ACTION WAS STARTED, THE PARTY MUST USE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CPLR 511 (A) AND (B), WHICH REQUIRES MAKING A DEMAND ON THE OTHER PARTY BEFORE BRINGING A MOTION; HERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT USED, THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE IN THE “WRONG COUNTY” AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF GENERAL INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE-ON-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED WATER IN THE SHOWER AT THE JAIL; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER A VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY (THE COUNTY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE SHERIFF); RATHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED THE COUNTY WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS OWN RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMAIN VALID AFTER DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A DIFFERENT CRIME WHEN THE INITIAL SENTENCE PROMISE COULD NOT BE FULFILLED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT OF FATHER’S 14-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER; BUT THAT EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF DERIVATIVE NEGLECT RE: FATHER’S YOUNGER DAUGHTER (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

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY’S DELAY IN NOTIFYING THE... THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR...