You are here: / AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED...

Search Results

/

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined an affirmative defense was not time-barred. Plaintiffs alleged a local law was not properly enacted and was therefore invalid. Defendants asserted in their answer that the law was properly enacted a valid as an affirmative defense:

​

… [T]he Supreme Court erred when it, in effect, dismissed the defendants’ affirmative defense. “[T]he statute of limitations governs the commencement of an action, not the assertion of a defense” (… see CPLR 201, 217). If a defense “arose from the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, upon which a claim asserted in the complaint depends, it is not barred to the extent of the demand in the complaint notwithstanding that it was barred at the time the claims asserted in the complaint were interposed” (CPLR 203[d] …) . * * *

​

… [T]he defendants’ answer does not seek any affirmative relief. Rather, it raises a defense that is “predicated on [an] act or fact growing out of the matter constituting the cause or ground of the action brought” by the plaintiffs … . In other words, the assertion that the Local Law was not validly enacted in accordance with the applicable referendum procedures specified in state and local law “arises from, and directly relates to” the plaintiffs’ claim that the Local Law was, in fact, enacted in accordance with the applicable referendum procedures and that they were therefore entitled to a declaration that the Local Law was valid … . Accordingly, the court erred when it, in effect, dismissed the affirmative defense contained in the defendants’ answer alleging that the Local Law was not validly enacted on the ground that the affirmative defense was time-barred (see CPLR 203[d]). Since the merits of the defendants’ affirmative defense were not reached by the court, it should not have awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Matter of Jenkins v Astorino, 2017 NY Slip Op 07730, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES  (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 203 (d) (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

/

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STAYED THE ENFORCEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5240 BASED ON COUNTERCLAIMS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANTS, ACTION ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS COULD PROCEED DESPITE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a “summary judgment in lieu of complaint” action on a note, determined Supreme Court should not have stayed the enforcement of a judgment because defendants had asserted counterclaims. The counterclaims could proceed despite enforcement of the judgment:

​

The Supreme Court erred in, upon renewal and reargument, staying enforcement of a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Pursuant to CPLR 5240, a court may, on its own initiative or on motion, stay the enforcement of a judgment. The purpose of this “broad discretionary power” is to permit the trial court to ” prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the court'” … . Here, that the defendants remain free to assert their counterclaims against the plaintiffs in a separate action does not preclude enforcement of the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The defendants proffered no evidence that permitting the plaintiffs to enforce the judgment would cause unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice. Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07703, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STAYED THE ENFORCEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5240 BASED ON COUNTERCLAIMS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANTS, ACTION ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS COULD PROCEED DESPITE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGMENT, STAY OF ENFORCEMENT (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STAYED THE ENFORCEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5240 BASED ON COUNTERCLAIMS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANTS, ACTION ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS COULD PROCEED DESPITE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5240 (STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STAYED THE ENFORCEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5240 BASED ON COUNTERCLAIMS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANTS, ACTION ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS COULD PROCEED DESPITE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT  (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STAYED THE ENFORCEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5240 BASED ON COUNTERCLAIMS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANTS, ACTION ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS COULD PROCEED DESPITE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

/

EXECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the executor’s informal accounting and disclosures to beneficiaries were sufficient, therefore the release signed by a beneficiary could not be set aside:

​

“[A] fiduciary, as an executor or trustee, is obligated to account for his or her decisions and actions in administering an estate or trust” … . “While formal accountings of an estate are done in the context of a judicial proceeding, [a] fiduciary may also account informally by obtaining receipts and releases from interested parties regarding the handling of the estate or trust'” … . ” [S]uch an informal accounting is as effectual for all purposes as a settlement pursuant to a judicial decree'” … . ” [I]f a fiduciary gives full disclosure in his [or her] accounting, to which the beneficiaries are parties . . . they should have to object at that time or be barred from doing so after the settlement of the account'” … . “Where the validity of a release is challenged, the fiduciary must affirmatively demonstrate that the beneficiaries were made aware of the nature and legal effect of the transaction in all its particulars'” … .

Here, the documents provided by [the executor] to … the … beneficiaries along with the release made the beneficiaries aware of all the distributions that would be made from the estate. The tax return showed that [the executor] would receive a greater share of the estate as a result of bank accounts she held jointly with the decedent. Thus, the Surrogate’s Court correctly denied [the beneficiary’s] motion to set aside the release. Matter of Spacek, 2017 NY Slip Op 07737, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (EXECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/ACCOUNTING (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, XECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EXECUTORS (ACCOUNTING, EXECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, INFORMAL ACCOUNTING, EXECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/INFORMAL ACCOUNTINGS (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, EXECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s negligence cause of action against the school district and another student were properly dismissed under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiff, a student, was injured in a basketball game during gym class when he was allegedly kicked by the student defendant. Plaintiff chose to play basketball among other possible activities. Therefore he could not take advantage of the “inherent compulsion” doctrine. Plaintiff’s assertion at the 50-h hearing that he was intentionally kicked did not raise a question of fact because the pleadings did not include an intentional tort or any mention of intentional conduct:

​

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . “[B]y freely assuming a known risk, a plaintiff commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk” … . If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, the plaintiff has consented to them and the defendant has performed its duty… . However, a plaintiff will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in the activity of basketball and was aware of the risks inherent in the activity, including the possibility of contact or collision with other participants… …

Also contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, he did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the application of the inherent compulsion doctrine, which “provides that the defense of assumption of the risk is not a shield from liability, even where the injured party acted despite obvious and evident risks, when the element of voluntariness is overcome by the compulsion of a superior” … . The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he chose to play basketball from a number of options. Consequently, the inherent compulsion doctrine is inapplicable … . Hanson v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 07711, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/GYM CLASS EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted. An employee of defendant moving company (Fisher) left a desk that was upright (on its side) on a dolly unattended. The desk fell over, injuring plaintiff:

​

“A trial court’s grant of a CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party” … . In considering the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the court must afford the nonmoving party “every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented” … . …

The defendants do not dispute that they, through their employee, created the condition that the plaintiff alleges existed. There was no evidence, and the defendants did not assert, that Fisher exercised reasonable care when he left the desk unattended on the dolly. The defendants’ contention that an issue of fact existed as to whether the accident happened at all is unsupported by the record and based upon speculation … . Based on this record, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the evidence … . Canale v L & M Assoc. of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07701, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4401 (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))

/

DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant driver was not entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Video showed plaintiff darting out on his bicycle into the street. However defendant driver is obligated to see what can be seen and did not demonstrate freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law:

​

“A driver is bound to see what is there to be seen with the proper use of his [or her] senses, and there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” … . In order for a defendant driver to establish entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability in a motor vehicle collision case, the driver must demonstrate, prima facie, inter alia, that he or she kept the proper lookout, or that his or her alleged negligence, if any, did not contribute to the accident … .

​

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT))

/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff had the right of way when defendant (Mack) turned on his turn signal and attempted a u-turn. Plaintiff had only one or two seconds to react and was not, therefore, comparatively negligent:

​

The plaintiff established that he was traveling with the right-of-way when Mack, who had stopped in a parking or merging lane to the right of the plaintiff’s lane of travel, suddenly attempted to make a U-turn in front of the plaintiff’s vehicle and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Although Mack testified at his deposition that he had activated his left-turn signal before he began to move his vehicle, the plaintiff, who had the right-of-way, was nevertheless entitled to anticipate that Mack would obey the traffic law requiring him to yield … . The plaintiff testified at his deposition that only one or two seconds passed between the time Mack’s vehicle suddenly pulled out and the collision, such that, while he attempted to brake and veer to the left, he could not avoid the collision. Indeed, Mack admitted that only a “[s]plit second” passed between the time he moved his vehicle and the collision. “[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . Criollo v Maggies Paratransit Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 07704, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s (Duran’s) motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice and for a new trial on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he fell from a beam which was four feet above the ground. There was evidence plaintiff previously alleged in a document that he fell over debris, but there was a question whether plaintiff, who spoke Spanish, understood the statement in the document. Plaintiff’s counsel asked that the jury be instructed to decide whether plaintiff fell off the beam, but the trial judge refused that request:

​

… Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ request to ask the jury to determine not only whether the temple violated Labor Law § 240(1), but also to determine whether Duran fell off the beam … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, this constituted a fundamental error warranting a new trial because the court’s instructions failed to explain to the jury that, in light of arguably inconsistent accounts of how the accident occurred, the jury was entitled to find that Duran did not fall from the beam or, alternatively, that he did fall from the beam but no safety device was required under Labor Law § 240(1). Further, there was sufficient evidence of juror confusion with respect to this issue … . Notably, the jury requested a readback of Labor Law § 240(1). The court’s errors in failing to properly charge the jury and add the interrogatory requested by the plaintiffs prejudiced a substantial right and warrants a new trial … . Duran v Temple Beth Sholom, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07708, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (a) (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200 AND 240 (1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and 240 (1) causes of action were properly granted. The plaintiff was injured when attempting to move a 500-600 pound piece of granite. A co-worker lost his grip and the granite fell 18 or 20 inches onto plaintiff’s toe. Because the defendants did not exercise any supervisory control over the manner of plaintiff’s work, the Labor Law 200 cause of action was dismissed. Monitoring safety conditions does not amount to supervisory control. Because the action did not involve the failure or absence of a safety device, the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was dismissed:

“Where . . . a claim arises out of the means and methods of the work, a [defendant] may be held liable for . . . a violation of Labor Law § 200 only if [it] had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . General supervisory authority for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work is insufficient to impose liability under the statute … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s injuries arose solely out of the manner of his employer’s work and the defendants exercised no supervisory control over that work … . The defendants’ authority to monitor safety conditions at the work site is merely indicative of their “general supervision and coordination of the work site and is insufficient to trigger liability” … ,

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against them. In cases involving falling objects, section 240(1) applies only when “the object fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the granite stone did not fall because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device … . Portalatin v Tully Constr. Co.- E.E. Cruz & Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 07762, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200 AND 240 (1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/

INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the insurer (Southwest) was entitled to summary judgment declaring it was not obligated to defend or indemnify the insured (Ralex). Ralex had settled the matter without Southwest’s consent:

​

Here, the subject insurance policy Southwest issued to Ralex provided that “[n]o insured will, except at that insured’s own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense, other than for first aid, without [Southwest’s] consent.” Contrary to Ralex’s contention, this provision is not ambiguous. “Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used, and if they are clear and unambiguous the terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and proper sense” … .

Moreover, “New York law views an insurer’s right to consent to any settlement as a condition precedent to coverage” … . Here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Southwest’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), since the documentary evidence it submitted showed that Ralex undertook its own defense in the underlying action, agreed to settle the underlying action, and incurred defense costs without first obtaining Southwest’s consent. By doing so, Ralex breached the insurance contract and is not entitled to coverage … . Ralex Servs., Inc. v Southwest Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 07763, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (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