You are here: / LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR...

Search Results

/ , ,

LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

The Second Department determined defendant-attorneys’ motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the attorneys missed a statute of limitations deadline. The attorneys submitted a letter purporting to terminate the attorney-client relationship with plaintiff prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court found that the letter was not the type of document upon which a motion to dismiss the complaint can be based:

​

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law”… . The evidence submitted in support of such motion must be ” documentary'” or the motion must be denied … . In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence, it must be “unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” … . Prott v Lewin & Baglio, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 03786, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)

/

THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING WOBBLED, SPUN AND FELL OVER, PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the ladder on which he was standing wobbled causing him to fall. The court distinguished a recent Court of Appeals case which found a question of fact precluded summary judgment where plaintiff fell on wet temporary exterior stairs. The First Department noted there is a presumption that a ladder or scaffold which fails did not provide adequate protection:

​

As the Court of Appeals recently reiterated in O’Brien v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (_ NY3d _, 2017 NY Slip Op 02466 … , ‘The fact that a worker falls at a construction site, in itself, does not establish a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).” “Rather, liability is contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” … . However, “[i]n cases involving ladders or scaffolds that collapse or malfunction for no apparent reason,” the Court of Appeals has applied “a presumption that the ladder or scaffolding device was not good enough to afford proper protection” …  — a presumption that the O’Brien Court recognized but found inapplicable to the facts before it, which involved a fall from an exterior stairway.

Here, plaintiff established prima facie that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated through his testimony that the ladder from which he fell wobbled during its use … , that two of the ladder’s rubber feet were missing …, and that the ladder spun and fell over … . Kebe v Greenpoint-Goldman Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 03712, 1st Dept 5-9-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING WOBBLED, SPUN AND FELL OVER, PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING WOBBLED, SPUN AND FELL OVER, PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/ ,

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the application of those regulations to the petitioners were lawful. Petitioners challenged certain DMV regulations pursuant to which their applications for driver’s licenses, which had been revoked for Driving While Intoxicated offenses, were denied. Applying the Boreali criteria, the court found the Commissioner did not exceed her rule-making powers. The court further found the regulations did not conflict with the relevant statutes and there was a rational basis for the Commissioner’s denial of the license applications:

​

The amendments at issue in these appeals (the Regulations) were adopted as emergency regulations in September 2012 and took effect immediately. In relevant part, the Regulations provide that, “[u]pon receipt of a person’s application for relicensing, the Commissioner shall conduct a lifetime review of such person’s driving record” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b]). The Commissioner “shall deny the application” if “the record review shows that”: (1) the applicant has “five or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions or incidents in any combination within his or her lifetime,” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [1]) or (2) within a “25 year look back period,” the applicant “has three or four alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions or incidents in any combination” and “one or more serious driving offense” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [2]). A “serious driving offense” includes: (i) “a fatal accident”; (ii) “a driving-related Penal Law conviction”; (iii) “conviction of two or more violations for which five or more points are assessed” on the applicant’s driving record; or (iv) “20 or more points from any violations” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [2]).

For applicants with “three or four alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions or incidents in any combination within the 25 year look back period but no serious driving offenses within the 25 year look back period,” the Regulations provide that the Commissioner “shall deny the application for at least five years” in addition to the minimum statutory revocation period (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3]). Following the expiration of this five-year waiting period, “the Commissioner may in his or her discretion approve the application, provided that upon such approval, the Commissioner shall impose the A2 restriction on such person’s license for a period of five years and shall require the installation of an ignition interlock device in any motor vehicle owned or operated by such person for such five-year period” (id.). An A2 restricted license is limited to operation to and from specified destinations — for instance, “the holder’s place of employment or education” (see 15 NYCRR 135.9 [b]; 15 NYCRR 3.2 [c] [4]).

The Commissioner is expressly permitted to “deviate from the general policy” set forth in the Regulations “in the exercise of discretionary authority granted” under the VTL (15 NYCRR 136.5 [d]). Specifically, the Commissioner may approve a relicensing application based on a showing of “unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances,” in which case “the applicant may be issued a license or permit with a problem driver restriction . . . and may be required to install an ignition interlock device” (id.). Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2017 NY Slip Op 03690, CtApp 5-9-17

 

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/DRIVE’S LICENSES (LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF  (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/BOREALI CRITERIA (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurrence and a two-judge dissent, determined plaintiff state trooper was entitled to attorney’s fees in connection with her successful employment discrimination action against the State under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA):

… [T] he plain language, legislative history and remedial nature of the EAJA together demonstrate that this civil action is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees. We hold that for cases commenced before the effective date of the 2015 amendment to the Human Rights Law, the EAJA permits the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in an action against the State under the Human Rights Law for sex discrimination in employment by a state agency. The plain language of the statute, which is supported by the legislative history, compels the conclusion that “any civil action” encompasses cases brought under the Human Rights Law. It is not for this Court to engraft limitations onto the plain language of the statute. Indeed, “[t]his Court should be very cautious in interpreting statutes based on what it views as a better choice of words when confronted with an explicit choice made by the Legislature” …. . Kimmel v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 03689, CtApp 5-9-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT)/EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE(PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT)/ATTORNEYS (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT)/SEX DISCRIMINATION (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEES, PLAINTIFF STATE TROOPER ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER HER SUCCESSFUL SEX DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE STATE UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT)

/ ,

HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the asbestos-related causes of action against Honeywell as the manufacturer of coke ovens used in a steel plant did not sound in products liability. The huge coke ovens were deemed to be part of the realty, not products in the stream of commerce. Therefore the products liability causes of action should have been dismissed:

We begin our analysis by noting that, in Matter of City of Lackawanna v State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment of State of N.Y . (16 NY2d 222, 226-227), the Court of Appeals concluded, when discussing the nature of these coke oven batteries, that “[t]here is no doubt that, by common-law standards, these structures would be deemed real property. Their magnitude, their mode of physical annexation to the land and the obvious intention of the owner that such annexation be permanent would, indeed, compel that conclusion.”

Using the construction of Battery No. 9 as an example, Honeywell’s submissions established that the construction of a coke oven battery was a multistage process that took place over approximately 18 months. The overall construction of the battery would have taken approximately 1,460,000 hours of labor to complete over six phases. * * *

.. .[W]e conclude that service predominated the transaction herein and that it was a contract for the rendition of services, i.e., a work, labor and materials contract, rather than a contract for the sale of a product … . We further conclude that a coke oven, installed as part of the construction of the “great complex of masonry structures” at Bethlehem … , permanently affixed to the real property within a coke oven battery, does not constitute a “product” for purposes of plaintiff’s products liability causes of action … . Terwilliger v Beazer E., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03629, 4th Dept 5-5-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, PRODUCTS LIABILITY, HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/ASBESTOS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/COKE OVENS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

/ ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this lead paint poisoning case should not have been granted:

“In order [t]o establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition’ ” … . Where, as here, there is no evidence that the landlord had actual notice, plaintiffs may establish that the landlord had constructive notice of such condition by demonstrating that the landlord “(1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” … .  Here, it is undisputed that decedent retained a right of entry and assumed a duty to make repairs, but the remaining … factors are in dispute.

By submitting the deposition testimony of plaintiffs’ mother, wherein she testified that she told [defendant] that she would be living at the residence with her young children, [defendants] raised a triable issue of fact on the fifth … factor. Similarly, [defendant’s] own deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact on the second … factor inasmuch as he testified that the subject residence was old, that lead was taken out of gasoline in 1970, and he “must have known” that laws regarding lead started to come out in the 1970s ,,, . Even assuming, arguendo, that [defendants] met their initial burden on the third and fourth … factors, we conclude that plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact by submitting ” evidence from which it may be inferred that [defendant] knew that paint was peeling on the premises’ . . . , and evidence from which a jury could infer that [defendant] knew or should have known of the dangers of lead paint to children’ ” … . Rodrigues v Lesser, 2017 NY Slip Op 03669, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/LEAD PAINT (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION.

The Fourth Department held the case in reserve to allow County Court to rule on other issues raised in opposition to defendant’s suppression motion, but specifically found County Court’s ruling the statement was admissible as “spontaneous” was error:

“Volunteered statements are admissible provided the defendant spoke with genuine spontaneity and [the statements were] not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed’ ” … . Such statements must be proven to be “spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause, . . . [and] it must at least be shown that they were in no way the product of an interrogation environment’ ” … . “Rather, [the statement] must satisfy the test for a blurted out admission, a statement which is in effect forced upon the officer” … .

Here, defendant’s statement was provoked or encouraged by the presentation or discussion of evidence suggestive of his criminal conduct, and we thus conclude that it cannot be deemed “spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause” … . “Although there may be other reasons to justify the denial of defendant’s motion, the only issues that we may consider on this appeal are those that may have adversely affected the appellant’ ” … . We therefore hold this case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to rule upon any other issues raised by the People in opposition to the motion. People v Ibarrondo, 2017 NY Slip Op 03643, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)/SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant orthopedic surgeon’s (McGrath’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/wrongful death case should have been granted. Defendant’s detailed affidavit established he did not deviate from the applicable standard of care and plaintiff’s expert, an anesthesiologist, did not raise a question of fact:

McGrath met his burden by submitting a detailed affirmation establishing that his care and treatment of decedent in recommending and performing surgery was consistent with the accepted standard of care … . The burden then shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact by submitting a physician’s affidavit establishing both a departure from the accepted standard of care and proximate cause … . Plaintiff failed to meet that burden inasmuch as he submitted the affirmation of an anesthesiologist who failed to establish how he was familiar with the accepted standard of care for an orthopedic surgeon. Although a medical expert need not be a specialist in a field to offer an opinion concerning the accepted standards of care in that field, a physician offering an opinion outside his or her particular field must lay a foundation to support the reliability of that opinion … . Chillis v Brundin, 2017 NY Slip Op 03646, 4th Dept 5-5-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EXPERT OPINION  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING STILTS, FELL WHEN A STILT CONTACTED AN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor law 240 (1) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was using stilts to work on a ceiling when a stilt contacted a conduit on the floor, causing him to fall:

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established its entitlement to judgment on the theory that plaintiff’s fall was caused solely by stepping on the conduit, i.e., a “separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first place” … , we nevertheless conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion … In his affidavit submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff clarified his deposition testimony with respect to why and how he fell … . Plaintiff was installing the last of eight ceiling tiles in a room. He explained in his deposition and in his affidavit that his work was obstructed by electrical wiring and conduit in the ceiling that had not been properly secured, thereby leaving limited space in which to install the tile, which measured two feet by four feet. With his arms fully extended overhead while attempting to move and secure the electrical wiring and conduit, he lost his balance and was forced to step backwards, at which point his right stilt came into contact with the conduit and he fell. Thus, plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether his “injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant height differential” while he was attempting to secure the electrical wiring and conduit in the ceiling in order to install the ceiling tile … , and were not solely caused by the presence of the conduit on the floor … . Piche v Synergy Tooling Sys., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03673, 4th Dept 5-5-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING STILTS, FELL WHEN A STILT CONTACTED AN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR)/STILTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING STILTS, FELL WHEN A STILT CONTACTED AN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR)

/ , ,

PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the negative declaration by the City of Rochester Director of Planning and Zoning under the State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA] should have been annulled. The Fourth Department first held that the parties had standing to contest the negative declaration because of their proximity to the subject construction site. In the face of the acknowledged contamination of the soil at the site, the negative declaration did not set forth or document the underlying reasoning:

We … agree with petitioners that the negative declaration did not contain a ” reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for [the] determination” … . “It is well settled that SEQRA’s procedural mechanisms mandate strict compliance, and anything less will result in annulment of the lead agency’s determination of significance” … . The lead agency must “set forth its determination of significance in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration and providing reference to any supporting documentation” … . The purpose of that regulation “is to focus and facilitate judicial review and . . . to provide affected landowners and residents with a clear, written explanation of the lead agency’s reasoning at the time the negative declaration is made” … . Here, despite the undisputed presence of preexisting soil contamination on the project site, the negative declaration set forth no findings whatsoever with respect to that contamination. The document containing the purported reasoning for the lead agency’s determination of significance, which was prepared subsequent to the issuance of the negative declaration, does not fulfill the statutory mandate … . Contrary to respondents’ contention, the developer’s promise to remediate the contamination before proceeding with construction did not absolve the lead agency from its obligations under SEQRA … . Matter of Rochester Eastside Residents for Appropriate Dev., Inc. v City of Rochester, 2017 NY Slip Op 03665, 4th Dept 5-5-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING)/ZONING (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING)

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