You are here: / CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN...

Search Results

/

CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT SPANNING 13 YEARS.

The Second Department, in this assault and battery action, determined defendant’s counterclaim alleging a deliberate campaign of harassment spanning 13 years was not subject to the one-year statute of limitations because the continuing tort doctrine applied:

… [T]he Supreme Court properly concluded that so much of the defendant’s third counterclaim as was based on conduct occurring prior to September 29, 2013, was not barred by the one-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 215), and that it was instead governed by the continuing tort doctrine, which permits claims based on “wrongful conduct occurring more than one year prior to commencement of the action, so long as the final actionable event occurred within one year of the suit” … . The counterclaim was supported by factual allegations that the plaintiff engaged in a continuing and concerted campaign of harassment and intimidation of the defendant that progressed from, among other things, calling the defendant, his family, and guests ethnic and racial epithets and throwing items onto his property to eventually making threats of violence, making false criminal accusations, committing assault and battery against the defendant, and continuing to engage in threatening and intimidating conduct nearly two months after the physical confrontation that is the subject of the plaintiff’s complaint … . The final actionable event, allegedly occurring in November 2013, fell within one year of the defendant’s service of the verified answer with counterclaims … . Estreicher v Oner, 2017 NY Slip Op 01844, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

NTENTIONAL TORTS (CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT SPANNING 13 YEARS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT SPANNING 13 YEARS)/CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE (CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT SPANNING 13 YEARS)/HARASSMENT (INTENTIONAL TORTS, CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT SPANNING 13 YEARS)

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FAILURE TO SAND OR SALT STEPS CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION.

The First Department, finding that summary judgment was properly denied in this slip and fall case, noted that there was a question of fact whether the failure to sand or salt the steps created or exacerbated a dangerous condition:

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped on icy steps in front of defendants’ residence. The record shows that defendant Kenneth Clarke testified that sheets of icy rain had been falling all morning on the day of the accident, and that the steps had been cleared earlier that morning by a man he had hired to clear snow and ice. However, plaintiff and a neighbor who lived across the street testified that there was no precipitation on the morning of the accident, but that it had snowed two and three days earlier. Plaintiff also stated that she had not seen the man defendant had hired to clear the steps, either after the previous snowfall or that morning, although she was home and would have been aware of his presence. Moreover, there are conflicting opinions of expert meteorologists regarding the weather conditions on the morning of plaintiff’s fall. Under these circumstances, summary judgment was properly denied, since triable issues of fact exist as to whether there was a storm in progress on the morning of plaintiff’s accident, which would have suspended defendants’ obligation to clear the steps of snow and ice … .

Furthermore, assuming that there was no storm in progress, the record also presents issues of fact as to whether anyone acting on defendants’ behalf ever inspected and cleared the steps, either on the morning of the accident or after the prior snowfall, and, if so, whether such person’s “failure to place sand or salt on the stairs created or exacerbated a dangerous condition” after the prior storm … . Arroyo v Clarke, 2017 NY Slip Op 01809, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FAILURE TO SAND OR SALT STEPS CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FAILURE TO SAND OR SALT STEPS CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION)

/ ,

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED DESPITE LACK OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE AND DEFENDANT’S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURY.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the NYC Housing Authority should have been granted, despite the lack of a reasonable excuse and defendant’s lack of knowledge of the injury. The infant plaintiff was nine months old when he was burned by an exposed water pipe.  The infancy and the lack of prejudice to the defendant warranted allowing the claim to be filed after a 10-month delay:

The infant plaintiff was approximately nine months old at the time that he allegedly sustained injuries as a result of an exposed hot water pipe in his family’s apartment, in a building owned and operated by defendant. This infancy weighs in favor of granting leave to serve a late notice of claim, regardless of the lack of a nexus between the delay and infancy … . In addition, defendant failed to address plaintiff’s showing that defendant would not be substantially prejudiced by the 10-month delay in seeking leave since the condition of the exposed pipes remained unchanged from the time of the accident … . Given these factors, which the motion court failed to address, and given the remedial nature of the statute, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in dismissing the infant plaintiff’s claim … . Eboni B. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 01816, 1st De[t 3-15-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED DESPITE LACK OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE AND DEFENDANT’S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURY)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED DESPITE LACK OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE AND DEFENDANT’S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURY)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED DESPITE LACK OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE AND DEFENDANT’S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURY)

/

INJURY WHILE TRIMMING A TREE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR LABOR LAW 240(1).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and 240(1) causes of action. Plaintiff was injured by a power saw as he was standing on a ladder cutting a tree branch. The Labor Law 200 cause of action was dismissed because defendants did not control the manner of plaintiff’s work. The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was dismissed because tree-trimming was not encompassed by the statute:

Here, the accident arose from the manner in which the work was performed, and the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim by submitting evidence demonstrating that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the methods or materials of the plaintiff’s work … . …

The defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s tree branch cutting work was outside the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), because a tree is not a “building or structure” within the meaning of the statute … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His contention that the tree branch cutting work was necessary to complete a larger renovation project with respect to the building on the premises is unsupported by the record … . Olarte v Morgan, 2017 NY Slip Op 01874, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY WHILE TRIMMING A TREE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR LABOR LAW 240(1))/TREE TRIMMING (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, INJURY WHILE TRIMMING A TREE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR LABOR LAW 240(1))

/

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, FALL FROM A-FRAME LADDER.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell when the A-frame ladder moved when he was standing on it:

Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his testimony that he was injured when the A-frame ladder on which he was standing moved underneath him as he applied pressure to it while trying to remove part of the drop ceiling he was demolishing … . Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was defective or that he actually fell off the ladder to satisfy his prima facie burden … .

Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. There is no testimony in the record as to whether there were other readily available, adequate safety devices at the accident site that plaintiff declined to use … . Moreover, the evidence establishes that the ladder twisted underneath plaintiff because it was unsecured, not because he misused it, and that defendants provided no other safety devices for his use. At most, plaintiff’s application of pressure to the ladder while engaged in the work he was directed to do, which caused it to twist, was comparative negligence, no defense to a section 240(1) claim … . “Regardless of the method employed by plaintiff to remove [the drop ceiling], the ladder provided to him was not an adequate safety device for the task he was performing” … . Messina v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01823, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, FALL FROM A-FRAME LADDER)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, FALL FROM A-FRAME LADDER)

/

TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED.

The First Department determined Labor Law 240(1) applied to the task of tilting a skid from a vertical position to a dolly.  However, there was a question of fact whether the skid was heavy enough to require a safety device:

Plaintiff was injured when he and a coworker attempted to move a wooden skid from a vertical position onto an A-frame dolly by tilting it at a 45-degree angle on one corner and toppling it onto the dolly. While plaintiff hoisted his side of the skid overhead with his arms, his coworker apparently lost his grip, and the skid fell on plaintiff, causing tears in his arm and shoulder.

That plaintiff and the skid were on the same level does not bar application of Labor Law § 240(1) … .

However, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, a triable issue of fact exists as to the weight of the skid and, therefore, whether a safety device was required under the statute. Natoli v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01818, 1st Dept 3-15-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED)

/

NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined a notice of disclaimer sent by defendant insurer (FMIC) to plaintiff’s insurer (Mt.Hawley) was not sufficient to disclaim coverage of plaintiff (Harco):

Here, although Mt. Hawley was acting on behalf of the plaintiffs when it sent notice of the occurrence to FMIC and demanded that FMIC assume the plaintiffs’ defense and indemnification in connection with any lawsuits arising from the incident, that did not make Mt. Hawley the plaintiffs’ agent for all purposes, or for the specific purpose that is relevant here: receipt of a notice of disclaimer … . Contrary to FMIC’s contention, Mt. Hawley’s interests were not necessarily the same as Harco’s in this litigation and because Harco had its own interests at stake, separate from that of Mt. Hawley, Harco was entitled to notice delivered to it … . Since FMIC failed to provide timely notice of its denial of coverage on the basis of a policy exclusion to Harco, it is estopped from disclaiming insurance coverage on that ground … . Harco Constr., LLC v First Mercury Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 01846, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

INSURANCE LAW (NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF)

/ ,

NEGLECT PETITION ALLEGING EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AFTER PRESENTATION OF DIRECT CASE, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the neglect petition should not have been dismissed at the close of the direct case. There was sufficient evidence of excessive corporal punishment and sufficient corroboration of the child’s out of court statements:

At the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner introduced a recording of two telephone calls to the 911 emergency number, and elicited testimony from a police officer and a caseworker that the mother admitted using a belt against the child. Such evidence was sufficient to corroborate the child’s out-of-court statements to the caseworker that the mother beat her … . Moreover, the absence of physical injury is not dispositive … . In any event, the caseworker’s testimony that the child had stated that her upper right arm hurt from having defended herself, was not undermined on cross examination. Finally, dismissal was not warranted on the ground that the child gave a conflicting statement to the police officer. Matter of Jaivon J. (Patricia D.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01856, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT PETITION ALLEGING EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AFTER PRESENTATION OF DIRECT CASE, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, NEGLECT PETITION ALLEGING EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AFTER PRESENTATION OF DIRECT CASE, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT PETITION ALLEGING EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AFTER PRESENTATION OF DIRECT CASE, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED)

/ ,

PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL.

The Second Department determined petitioner was properly estopped from asserting his paternity claim. The Second Department noted that the fact that petitioner’s paternity petition was reinstated upon a prior appeal did not preclude the denial of the petition on equitable estoppel grounds:

The Family Court properly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the petitioner from asserting his paternity claim with respect to the subject child. The evidence at a hearing established that the respondent Gaston R. has established a strong father-daughter relationship with the child. The child has referred to Gaston R. as “daddy” since she was 18 months old and continues to view him as the only father figure in her life. In contrast, the petitioner learned, shortly after the child’s birth, that he was the child’s biological father. Nevertheless, he did not commence the instant paternity proceeding until the child was four years old. The petitioner has not had a parent-child relationship with the child for several years, and the child no longer recognizes the petitioner’s name. Under these circumstances, the court properly determined that it was in the child’s best interests to equitably estop the petitioner from asserting his paternity claim

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, this Court’s determination on a prior appeal, which, inter alia, reinstated his paternity petition, did not preclude the Family Court from considering the doctrine of equitable estoppel upon remittal … . Matter of Thomas T. v Luba R., 2017 NY Slip Op 01870, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL)/PATERNITY (PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL)

/

APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT FINDING.

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied a motion to vacate an order of protection. Appellant had been slightly late for a hearing on her sister’s request for an order of protection and the order was issued based upon appellant’s default:

In this family offense proceeding, the Family Court issued an order of protection against the appellant and in favor of her sister upon the appellant’s failure to appear at a hearing. The appellant moved to vacate the order of protection entered upon her default, and the Family Court denied her motion. * * *

The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of protection entered upon her default in appearing at the hearing. The appellant showed no willfulness or intent to default, where she was minimally tardy to the hearing, and the tardiness might have been due, at least in part, to crowded conditions at the courthouse, she attended prior court appearances, she engaged in motion practice through her attorney, and she participated in multiple preparatory conferences with her attorney … . Also, the appellant moved to vacate the order of protection relatively soon after it was issued. Under the circumstances, the appellant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the hearing. Further, the appellant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the petition …. . Matter of Williams v Williams, 2017 NY Slip Op 01873, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT FINDING)/DEFAULT (FAMILY LAW, APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT FINDING)

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