You are here: / ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN...

Search Results

/

ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the rope (connected to a tree and a metal stanchion in a building atrium) which caused plaintiff to trip and fall was a non-actionable open and obvious condition:

[Defendant] moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing that the subject metal stanchions and connecting rope were open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous. The Supreme Court denied [defendant’s] motion.

[Defendant] met its prima facie burden by showing that the subject rope and stanchions, which were known to the plaintiff, were open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact… . LeComples v More Specialized Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07298, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. The plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall as he attempted to board a bus:

“[A] plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation” … . Although “[p]roximate cause may be established without direct evidence of causation, by inference from the circumstances of the accident[,] . . . mere speculation as to the cause of an accident, when there could have been many possible causes, is fatal to a cause of action” … . “Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance, could have caused a trip and fall accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation” … . Hahn v Go Go Bus Tours, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07294, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

/ , , ,

COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the county could not be held liable for flooding by a brook which overflowed its banks. There was not special relationship between the county and the plaintiff:

“[A] municipal corporation is not liable for failure to restrain waters between banks of a stream or to keep a channel free from obstructions it did not cause. Absent any special duty owed to the private landowners, a municipal corporation cannot be held liable for failing to provide adequate flood protection” … . Here, the County demonstrated that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and that the overflow was caused by natural phenomena, rather than its conduct. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Kimball Brooklands Corp. v County of Westchester, 2016 NY Slip Op 07297, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/FLOODING (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF

/

STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff had standing to bring an action contesting a satisfaction of mortgage. The court determined the standing requirements for a foreclosure action applied and explained the burdens of proof for summary judgment:

“The plaintiff may demonstrate that it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note by showing either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note” … . “As a general matter, once a promissory note is tendered to and accepted by an assignee, the mortgage passes as an incident to the note. However, the transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it . . . because a mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist independently of the debt or obligation” … .

On a defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint based upon the plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law … . “To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law; rather, the motion will be defeated if the plaintiff’s submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing” … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Noble, 2016 NY Slip Op 07315, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

MORTGAGES (STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION)/SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE (STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION)/STANDING (MORTGAGES, (STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION)

/

FAILURE TO RETURN KEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO SURRENDER THE APARTMENT, TENANT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSIT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant was entitled to the return of the security deposit. The fact that the tenant did not return the keys did not show a failure to surrender the apartment:

The tenant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action alleging breach of the lease for failing to return the security deposit (see General Obligations Law § 7-103). The evidence established that the tenant paid the landlord a security deposit and vacated the apartment a few days before the lease terminated. In opposition, the landlord failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the landlord’s contention, the tenant’s failure to return the keys prior to the expiration of the lease did not show a failure to surrender … . Furthermore, there was no provision in the lease requiring the tenant to notify the landlord that he was vacating the apartment. In fact, the “Tenant Cooperation Rider” stated that such notice was not required. Moreover, the landlord failed to submit evidentiary proof that the tenant damaged the apartment. Pezzo v 26 Seventh Ave. S., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07310, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

LANDLORD-TENANT (FAILURE TO RETURN KEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO SURRENDER THE APARTMENT, TENANT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSIT)/KEYS (LANDLORD-TENANT, FAILURE TO RETURN KEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO SURRENDER THE APARTMENT, TENANT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSIT)/SECURITY DEPOSIT (LANDLORD-TENANT, FAILURE TO RETURN KEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO SURRENDER THE APARTMENT, TENANT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSIT)

/

A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPENING.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff alleged he was pulled into a two-foot deep trench while holding a cable. The court held the hazard was not “elevation-related” and the two-foot deep trench was not a “hazardous opening:”

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not caused by the elevation or gravity-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

… [T]he defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by demonstrating, inter alia, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1), which is the only Industrial Code provision upon which the plaintiff presently relies, is inapplicable to the facts of this case. That provision provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]very hazardous opening into which a person may step or fall shall be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or by a safety railing” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[b][1][i]). Although this provision is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) … , the trench in this particular case, which was only two feet deep, is not a hazardous opening within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1) … . Palumbo v Transit Tech., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07305, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPENING)

/

FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell when he attempted to descend a 28-foot ladder. Apparently a 40-foot ladder would have been safer, but there was no showing a 40-foot ladder was available. Therefore plaintiff’s use of a 28-foot ladder could not be the sole proximate cause of his injury:

… [T]he plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that he was injured when he fell while descending an unsecured, 28-foot ladder, and that he was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling … . Contrary to Halsted’s (defendant’s) contention, it failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s decision to use a 28-foot ladder, rather than a 40-foot ladder, was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The record reveals that there were no 40-foot ladders readily available to the plaintiff on the date of his accident, and that a Halsted employee nevertheless instructed the plaintiff that he was required to complete his job, or be fired. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s use of the 28-foot ladder cannot be said to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Pacheco v Halsted Communications, Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 07303, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/LADDERS (FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW, FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)

/

REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL.

The Second Department determined defendant (Nickel) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 200(1), 246(1) and 240(1) causes of action. Plaintiff was injured when he fell of a ladder while attempting to fix an air conditioner which had stopped running. Plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law 240(1) or 246(1). The Labor Law 200(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because defendant did not control the manner of plaintiff’s work:

Nickel submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was not engaged in an enumerated activity protected under Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of his accident. Furthermore, Nickel submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s accident did not involve construction, demolition, or excavation and, accordingly, that Labor Law § 241(6) does not apply. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Nickel’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against it, albeit for a different reason. Nickel established, prima facie, that the ladder was not defective, and the plaintiff conceded that fact. Thus, the potential liability of Nickel, contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, was not based on its actual or constructive notice of any dangerous or defective condition of the ladder … . Instead, the plaintiff allegedly was injured as a result of the manner in which he performed his work. Accordingly, recovery against Nickel under Labor Law § 200 or under the common law may only be found if Nickel had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work … . Nickel established, prima facie, that it did not have authority to exercise supervision or control over the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Mammone v T.G. Nickel & Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07300, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL)/LADDERS  (REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL)

/

REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(10 cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff had been hired to install wood paneling. Speakers were removed from wall to install the paneling. Plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder, replacing one of the speakers when the ladder swayed and he fell. The Second Department held that plaintiff was engaged in “altering,” a covered activity, and the allegation that the ladder swayed was sufficient to link the fall to a failure of a safety device (failure to secure the ladder):

Although the defendant contends that the act of rehanging a speaker does not constitute the “altering” of a building or structure, “[t]he intent of [Labor Law § 240(1)] was to protect workers employed in the enumerated acts, even while performing duties ancillary to those acts” … . The plaintiff was injured while rehanging a speaker that he and his coworkers had removed to enable them to install the wood paneling and, therefore, we conclude that the plaintiff was injured while performing work that was “ancillary to” a covered activity, entitling him to the protections afforded by Labor Law § 240(1) … . “To myopically focus on a job title or the plaintiff’s activities at the moment of the injury would be to ignore the totality of the circumstances in which the plaintiff and his employer were engaged in contravention of the spirit of the statute which requires a liberal construction in order to accomplish its purpose of protecting workers” … .

Further, the plaintiff established, prima facie, the existence of a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) that was a substantial factor in causing his injuries … . “A fall from a ladder, by itself, is not sufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 240(1). There must be evidence that the subject ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” … . Here, the plaintiff’s proof established that the ladder from which he fell was inadequately secured to provide him with proper protection, and that the failure to secure the ladder was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Goodwin v Dix Hills Jewish Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07293, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL)/ALTERING (LABOR LAW 240(1), REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELLING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW 240(1), REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELLING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL)

/ , ,

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying), Supreme Court determined the complaint stated a cause of against for negligent misrepresentation against an insurance broker (Weiss) individually and for breach of fiduciary duty against the broker’s corporation (JDW). It was alleged that the defendants failed to add plaintiff’s landlord as an additional insured and the broker signed a certificate which falsely indicated the landlord had been added to the policy:

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining, upon reargument, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action sounding in negligent misrepresentation against Weiss individually. … [W]e note that the complaint, as amplified by the evidentiary materials submitted by the plaintiffs, alleged that Weiss personally signed a certificate of insurance falsely stating that the plaintiffs’ landlord had been added as an additional insured on a certain commercial general liability insurance policy, and forwarded this certificate to the plaintiffs, knowing that it was required by the plaintiffs’ landlord. This is sufficient, for purposes of CPLR 3211(a)(7), to state a cause of action against Weiss, based on his personal participation in the commission of a tort … . * * *

The common-law rule is that “an insurance broker acting as an agent of its customer has a duty of reasonable care to the customer to obtain [specifically] requested coverage within a reasonable time after the request, or to inform the customer of the agent’s inability to do so, [but] the agent owes no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct the customer insured to obtain additional coverage” … . However “[w]here a special relationship develops between the broker and client, . . . [the] broker may be liable, even in the absence of a specific request, for failing to advise or direct the client to obtain additional coverage” … . The Court of Appeals has identified three “exceptional situations” which may give rise to such a special relationship: ” (1) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums; (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent; or (3) there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on'” … .

Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the complaint sufficiently alleged that there was a course of dealing between JDW and the plaintiffs over an extended period of time, which may have given rise to a special relationship between them … . JT Queens Carwash, Inc. v JDW & Assoc., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07295, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION)/CORPORATION LAW (INSURANCE LAW, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION)/NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (INSURANCE LAW, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (INSURANCE LAW, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION)

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