You are here: / PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION;...

Search Results

/

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from a fall of 13 to 14 feet from the back of a flatbed truck. Plaintiff was standing on top of steel beams, securing the beams with a cable (to be hoisted by crane off the truck), when he fell. The dissent argued plaintiff did not demonstrate he could have been provided with any kind of safety equipment which would have prevented the fall. Plaintiff was wearing a safety harness, but the harness was not tied off:

The motion court correctly determined that defendants, other than Metropolitan Steel, were liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for plaintiff’s injuries because they failed to provide plaintiff with an adequate safety device to prevent his fall from steel beams placed on a flatbed trailer. … [D]efendants’ contention that the accident is outside the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) is without merit, because plaintiff’s fall from a height of 13 or 14 feet above the ground “constitutes precisely the type of elevation-related risk envisioned by the statute” … . The fact that plaintiff did not ask for a specific safety device prior to the accident is not dispositive and is not a prerequisite for recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that his fall resulted from the lack of a safety device and is, therefore, entitled to summary judgment on liability (see Phillip v 525 E. 80th St. Condominium, 93 AD3d 578, 579 [1st Dept 2012] [the plaintiff entitled to summary judgment where evidence showed that the plaintiff, who fell while unloading scaffolding material from the flatbed of a truck, was provided with a safety harness, but there was no place where the harness could be secured]). Myiow v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06461, 1st Dept 10-4-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK)/FLATBED TRUCK (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK)

/ ,

STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION.

The First Department, reversing defendants’ convictions, determined statements made by the shooting victim should not have been admitted as dying declarations because the statements reflected speculation, not facts. Whether the statements were admissible as dying declarations was not a question of fact for the jury. The defendants were not present at the shooting. The prosecution was based upon the theory the defendants hired the shooter:

… [W]e reverse the judgments and order a new trial because the court erred in admitting, as dying declarations, the victim’s statements implicating defendants, since they were his “mere expression of belief and suspici[ons]” that defendants were involved in his shooting rather than “statements of facts to which a living witness would have been permitted to testify, if placed upon the stand” … . Although the dying declarant may accuse his or her killer in conclusory language, “[t]he declaration is kept out if the setting of the occasion satisfies the judge, or in reason ought to satisfy him [or her], that the speaker is giving expression to suspicion or conjecture, and not to known facts” … .

… Contrary to the People’s argument, the question of what the victim was referring to when he implicated these defendants was not a proper jury question, nor did the lack of specificity merely go to the weight to be accorded this evidence.

The admission of the statements, which was over defendants’ timely and specific objection, was not harmless. Although some facts that may have led the victim to suspect that defendants were involved in his murder were part of the trial evidence, there was nothing to prevent the jury from speculating that the victim was privy to other information, outside the record, connecting defendants to the crime. We also note that the jury, which issued several deadlock notes during its very lengthy deliberations, twice requested to hear the dying declaration evidence. People v Gumbs, 2016 NY Slip Op 06424, 1st Dept 10-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION)/DYING DECLARATIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, (STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION)

/ , , ,

HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea), based upon defense counsel’s failure to advise defendant of the possibility of deportation, should not have been denied without a hearing. The decision includes a concise yet complete summary of the federal and state criteria for ineffective assistance and the burdens of proof re: a motion to vacate a conviction by plea. The court noted that credibility questions, here whether defendant’s claim he would have rejected the plea had he known of the risk of deportation, can only be resolved by a hearing:

The issue before us thus turns on whether counsel’s lack of advice on the deportation consequences of defendant’s guilty plea resulted in sufficient prejudice to warrant the withdrawal of his guilty plea. In order to prevail, a defendant must demonstrate a “reasonable probability that, [had counsel properly advised him of the implication of his plea on his immigration status], he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … . … [D]efendant alleges that he would have gone to trial, despite its hazards and the potentially significant incarceration that a conviction would entail, had he been advised he would be deported. Although to have done so would have meant the rejection of “the very beneficial deal” his counsel had negotiated, the motion court erred in finding that defendant’s claim was not “credible,” given the length of time defendant resided legally in the United States, and the other factors raised in his motion papers. Such credibility determinations should be made only after a hearing … . People v Samuels, 2016 NY Slip Op 06423, 1st Dept 10-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)

/ , , ,

JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action as untimely was properly denied. The facts, which concern the sale of interests in a Russian oil company, are too complex to summarize here. The court held that the complaint alleged a breach of a 2001 joint venture investment agreement based upon an alleged failure to pay plaintiff a portion of sale proceeds in 2013, making the 2014 lawsuit timely:

 

… [T]he motion court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of their joint venture agreement and the 2001 Agreement, and for breach of defendants’ fiduciary duty. It held that although there was no written investment agreement signed by both defendants … plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the existence of a valid oral agreement by alleging that the parties agreed to the central terms of the unsigned investment agreement. It further held that the oral agreement was not void under the statute of frauds because it was capable of being performed within one year, and because the statute of frauds is generally inapplicable to joint ventures. It also rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s breach of contract and breach of joint venture claims were time barred, reasoning that the claimed breach of the 2001 Agreement was defendants’ failure to pay plaintiff his percentage share of the 2013 … sale proceeds. * * *

This action was commenced within both limitations periods, because defendants “had a recurring obligation to pay plaintiff his . . . share of the profits generated by” the joint venture. … . A new claim accrued when the obligation to do so was allegedly breached in 2013. Lebedev v Blavatnik, 2016 NY Slip Op 06463, 1st Dept 10-4-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/CONTRACT LAW (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/CORPORATION LAW (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/JOINT VENTURES (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)

/ , , ,

EXPERT’S INABILITY TO QUANTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DIMINISHED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME DID NOT JUSTIFY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law (on the issue of causation) should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the delay in diagnosing or failure to diagnose plaintiff’s decedent’s condition diminished plaintiff’s decedent’s chance of a better outcome. Plaintiff’s expert’s inability to quantify the extent to which defendants’ conduct diminished the chance of a better outcome did not render the proof insufficient:

In order to establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care “was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury” (PJI 2:70…). Where, as here, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently failed or delayed in diagnosing and treating a condition, a finding that the negligence was a proximate cause of an injury to the patient may be predicated on the theory that the defendant thereby “diminished [the patient’s] chance of a better outcome,” in this case, survival … . In that instance, the plaintiff must present evidence from which a rational jury could infer that there was a “substantial possibility” that the patient was denied a chance of the better outcome as a result of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care … . However, “[a] plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome . . . , as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome’ … . Clune v Moore, 2016 NY Slip Op 06331, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

/ ,

INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Fourth Department determined a 17-year-old (Taquilo) could be liable for a dog bite, despite the fact that the dog was owned by his father (Rogelio). The court further determined the punitive damages claim against Taquilo properly survived the motion for summary judgment:

We reject defendants’ contention that Taquilo is relieved of potential liability for the child’s injuries based upon Taquilo’s age at the time of the incident. “It is elementary in this State that an infant may be held civilly liable for damages caused by his [or her] tortious acts” … , and defendants cite no authority to support their contention that an infant cannot be subject to strict liability for harm caused by an animal. Nor is it dispositive that the dog was owned by Taquilo’s father, Rogelio. “Strict liability can . . . be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensit[ies]” … . Here, defendants’ own submissions raise issues of fact whether Taquilo harbored the dog … , and whether he knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities … . Cruz v Stachowski, 2016 NY Slip Op 06327, 4th Dept 9-30-16

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/DOG BITE (INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DOG BITE, INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

/

TO JUSTIFY CIVIL CONFINEMENT, THE DISEASE OR DISORDER ATTRIBUTED TO A SEX OFFENDER NEED NOT BE A SEXUAL DISORDER; SEX OFFENDER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence that the sex offender suffered from a mental abnormality as defined in the  Mental Hygiene Law was sufficient to survive petitioner’s motion for a directed verdict. The court noted that the disease or disorder attributed to the petitioner need not be a sexual disorder:

Pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, a person is classified as a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement if that person “suffer[s] from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (§ 10.03 [e]). The statute defines a mental abnormality as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (§ 10.03 [i]). “Section 10.03 (i)’s language congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder’ is not limited to solely sexual disorders . . . Rather, one may possess a condition, disease or disorder’ that does not constitute a sexual disorder’ but nonetheless affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense’ ” … .

Here, the court relied on Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. (24 NY3d 174) in concluding that, while petitioner’s antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and psychopathic traits predisposed him to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense, such disorder and traits, alone or in combination, are not sexual disorders and thus as a matter of law do not constitute a mental abnormality within the meaning of the Mental Hygiene Law. We conclude, however, that the court erred in granting petitioner’s motion for a directed verdict inasmuch as “Donald DD. did not engraft upon the condition, disease, or disorder’ prong a requirement that the condition, disease or disorder’ must constitute a sexual disorder’ ” … . Matter of Suggs v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06289, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (TO JUSTIFY CIVIL CONFINEMENT, THE DISEASE OR DISORDER ATTRIBUTED TO A SEX OFFENDER NEED NOT BE A SEXUAL DISORDER; SEX OFFENDER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEX OFFENDERS (TO JUSTIFY CIVIL CONFINEMENT, THE DISEASE OR DISORDER ATTRIBUTED TO A SEX OFFENDER NEED NOT BE A SEXUAL DISORDER; SEX OFFENDER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL CONFINEMENT (SEX OFFENDERS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, TO JUSTIFY CIVIL CONFINEMENT, THE DISEASE OR DISORDER ATTRIBUTED TO A SEX OFFENDER NEED NOT BE A SEXUAL DISORDER; SEX OFFENDER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/ ,

INSURED NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO SETTLE THE INSURED’S RIGHTS UNDER THE POLICY.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff (the insured) was not entitled to attorney’s fees in an action brought to settle its rights under a policy:

This case is governed by the general rule that attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses are “incidents of litigation” that the prevailing party may not collect “from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or court rule” … . Indeed, it is well established that “an insured may not recover the expenses incurred in bringing an affirmative action against an insurer to settle its rights under the policy” … . Here, there is nothing in the insurance policy that obligates defendant to reimburse or indemnify plaintiff for attorneys’ fees incurred by it in prosecuting an action to enforce the property coverage provisions of the policy, nor does plaintiff refer to any statute or a court rule authorizing its recovery of attorneys’ fees from defendant. Zelasko Constr., Inc. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06328, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

/

ANTISUBROGATION RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY TO THE EXTENT RECOVERY EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE RELEVANT POLICY.

The Fourth Department determined the antisubrogation rule prohibited the insurer from recovering under the relevant $1,000,000 policy. But there was no showing that recovery under a $25,000,000 umbrella policy was prohibited by the antisubrogation rule. Therefore recovery to the extent recovery exceeded $1,000,000 was not precluded by the rule:

… [U]nder the antisubrogation rule, “an insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered . . . even where the insured has expressly agreed to indemnify the party from whom the insurer’s rights are derived’ ” … . Conversely, where “the monetary limit of the insurance provided by the . . . policy is for a lesser sum than that sought by the plaintiff as damages, the motion [for summary judgment dismissing] the third-party complaint should have been granted only up to the applicable limits of that policy” … , because “[i]t is black letter law that New York law does not bar insurance companies from seeking indemnification for settlements or judgments that exceed the limits of an insurance policy” … . Mitchell v NRG Energy, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06359, 4th Dept 9-30-16

INSURANCE LAW (ANTISUBROGATION RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY TO THE EXTENT RECOVERY EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE RELEVANT POLICY)/ANTISUBROGATION RULE (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY TO THE EXTENT RECOVERY EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE RELEVANT POLICY)

/

FORCING DEFENDANT MOTHER TO GO TO TRIAL IN A CUSTODY SUIT WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, AFTER HER ATTORNEY WITHDREW FOR NONPAYMENT ON THE MORNING OF THE TRIAL, REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court’s failure to grant an adjournment to allow mother to find another attorney, after her attorney withdrew on the morning of the custody trial, required reversal:

We conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an adjournment … . The record establishes that defendant’s request was not a delay tactic and did not result from her lack of diligence … . We also agree with defendant that the court’s refusal to grant defendant an adjournment to obtain new counsel resulted in the absence of a full and complete record upon which the court could render an adequate and informed decision. “The custody determination of the trial court generally is entitled to great deference . . . , but [s]uch deference is not warranted . . . where the custody determination lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” … . Zhu v Ye Cheng, 2016 NY Slip Op 06358, 4th Dept 9-30-16

FAMILY LAW (FORCING DEFENDANT MOTHER TO GO TO TRIAL IN A CUSTODY SUIT WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, AFTER HER ATTORNEY WITHDREW FOR NONPAYMENT ON THE MORNING OF THE TRIAL, REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, FORCING DEFENDANT MOTHER TO GO TO TRIAL IN A CUSTODY SUIT WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, AFTER HER ATTORNEY WITHDREW FOR NONPAYMENT ON THE MORNING OF THE TRIAL, REQUIRED REVERSAL)

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