You are here: / / NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY...

NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the building owner (Grand) and the prospective purchaser of the building (Empire) should have been dismissed. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor which apparently had just been mopped by a co-worker. Neither Grand nor Empire had general supervisory authority over the premises and did not supervise or control the work of plaintiff or the co-worker:

The building was owned by defendant Grand but was under a contract of sale to defendant Empire, with a closing date of February 1, 2017. Under the contract of sale, Empire was given access to the premises prior to closing to perform renovations and to stage and lease the apartments. Empire hired plaintiff’s employer Infinity to act as general contractor for the renovations. According to the record, Empire did not have any employees at the premises on the date of the accident and did not supervise Infinity’s work. Grand had no employees or agents at the premises full time, but an employee of a company related to Grand would occasionally visit the building to check that there were no problems and that everything was clean. The employee visited the building approximately four or five times, approximately twice in the four months prior to the accident, and once during construction. No one employed by Grand regularly supervised the construction ongoing at the premises. Arnold v Empire 326 Grand LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00965, First Dept 2-15-22

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ATTENDING PHYSICIAN NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT BASED UPON THE PHYSICIAN’S STATUS AS A SHAREHOLDER IN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION WHICH EMPLOYED THE PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT; $3 MILLION VERDICT EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE FOUR-YEAR LOOKBACK CAN BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE NYC APARTMENTS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, THE ESSENCE OF THE LAWSUIT IS THE ALLEGED BREACH OF THE CONTRACTS; THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT NULLIFIED THE CONTRACTS; THEREFORE THE JURY-TRIAL WAIVER PROVISIONS REMAIN ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE DEFAULT LETTER DID NOT DECLARE THE MORTGAGE DEBT IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE; THEREFORE THE LETTER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Instructed the Jury on the Initial Aggressor Exception to the Justification Defense—No Evidence to Support the Exception
VERTICAL LADDER FIRE ESCAPE, THROUGH WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL AND WAS RENDERED PARAPLEGIC, VIOLATED MULTIPLE DWELLINGS LAW 53.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE... SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED...