You are here: / FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN...

Search Results

/

FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, I.E., COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The plaintiff alleged she was injured by a picture frame which fell on her inside an office leased by defendant.  Plaintiff alleged liability under common-law negligence and res ipsa loqutur. The Second Department determined defendant’s summary judgment was properly denied because defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate (1) a lack of exclusive control over the picture frame, (2) the picture frame did not constitute a dangerous condition, and (3) defendant did not create a dangerous condition. [Again, failure of the defense to affirmatively address every alleged theory of liability requires denial of summary judgment.]. Assil v Camba, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00914, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)

/ ,

SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined defendant general contractor (Metro) was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, but was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Plaintiff was injured when the knot on a rope he was tied to while pushing snow off a roof gave way and he fell three stories. The decision illustrates the subtle difference between the amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 240(1) and the greater amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 200 and common law negligence:

 

The failure of an owner or an agent of the owner “to furnish or erect suitable devices to protect workers when work is being performed” results in absolute liability against that owner or the owner’s agent under the statute … , and the duty to provide a suitable safety device under Labor Law § 240(1), moreover, is nondelegable … . A general contractor is not considered a statutory agent of the property owner for Labor Law § 240(1) liability purposes, unless that contractor had the authority to supervise and control significant aspects of the construction project, such as safety, at the time of the accident … . …

… Metro was [demonstrated to be] a statutory agent of the property owner on the construction project through the submission of Metro’s admission that it was hired by the property owners as the general contractor on the project, and evidence that Metro undertook general contractor duties by coordinating and supervising the project, and hiring and paying subcontractors… . …

Where, as here, “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had under Labor Law § 200 unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . However, ” [t]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'” … . Sanchez v Metro Bldrs. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00957, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner was not entitled to summary judgment in this common-law negligence and Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6) action. Plaintiff was injured working on defendant’s building. Defendant, in his motion papers, did not affirmatively address all the possible theories of recovery available to the plaintiff. Therefore summary judgment should not have been granted. [Another example of the need for a defendant bringing a summary judgment motion to affirmative address every theory raised in the complaint.]:

 

Liability on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action “generally falls into two broad categories: instances involving the manner in which the work is performed, and instances in which workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site” … . Where, as alleged here, the plaintiff’s accident arose from an allegedly dangerous premises condition, a property owner may be held liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 when the owner has control over the work site and either created the dangerous condition causing an injury, or failed to remedy the dangerous or defective condition while having actual or constructive notice of it …. Thus, where a plaintiff’s injury arose from a dangerous condition at a work site, a property owner moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging common-law negligence has “the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. … Further, the defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact as to whether he had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition … . …

Moreover, the Supreme Court erred in directing the dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action because, while the defendant generally sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint insofar as asserted against him, he did not demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact in connection with these causes of action… . Korostynskyy v 416 Kings Highway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00939, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES ON PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLE BY EMINENT DOMAIN.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether tenant was entitled to compensation for trade fixtures in property to which the village acquired title by eminent domain.  The court explained the relevant law:

 

Providing compensation to a trade fixture owner is in derogation of the common-law rule that government taking of real property encompasses the land and everything annexed thereto, including trade fixtures … . Under the trade fixture rule, a tenant who owns the trade fixture, but not the property to which the fixture is annexed, may seek compensation for trade fixtures it had a right to remove, but elected not to remove, and thus remained annexed to the property at the time of the taking … . A tenant’s right to compensation for fixtures installed on the leasehold exists despite provisions in the lease which terminate the lease in the event of a condemnation. Such provisions have been interpreted as ” an agreement between landlord and tenant that the tenant shall receive out of the award no compensation for his leasehold interest. Even so, the tenant retains the right to compensation for his interest in any annexation to the real property which but for the fact that the real property has been taken, he would have had the right to remove at the end of his lease'” … . Matter of Village of Spring Val., N.Y.. (Sport Club Intl., Inc.), 2016 NY Slip Op 00985, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE CAR ACCIDENT)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE CAR ACCIDENT)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR  (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE CAR ACCIDENT)

/

DISCHARGE OF SWORN JUROR WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN APPROPRIATE INQUIRY AND WITHOUT SEEKING INPUT FROM COUNSEL WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department determined the court’s discharging a sworn juror without allowing counsel to be heard was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and a new trial. The juror became upset when she learned the defendant was a relative of a person she sees every day. With counsel’s permission, the trial judge interviewed the juror alone. The judge discharged her without conducting a proper inquiry, without first explaining to counsel what was discussed and without hearing from both counsel on what should be done:

 

As a matter of procedure, the court, at a minimum, should have informed all parties of the substance of the in camera interview and provided each side with an opportunity to be heard before making its determination to discharge the sworn juror (… cf. CPL 270.35[2][b]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, however, this procedural error, standing alone, was not inherently prejudicial … . Nevertheless, affording all sides an opportunity to be heard in this case might well have allowed counsel to oppose the court’s proposed disposition before it became a fait accompli. Further questioning of the juror might have revealed the underlying reasons for her uncertainty, thereby assisting the court in making an informed decision as to whether discharge of the juror was warranted.

Based on the Supreme Court’s very limited questioning of the subject juror, we find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in discharging her. Assuming, as both parties contend, that the court’s authority to discharge the sworn juror must be considered under CPL 270.35 …, the court made little effort to ascertain whether the juror could, in fact, deliberate fairly and render an impartial verdict. In making such an important determination with respect to a sworn juror, “the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror’s knowledge will prevent her from rendering an impartial verdict” … . People v Owens, 2016 NY Slip Op 00993, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DISCHARGE OF SWORN JUROR WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY AND INPUT FROM COUNSEL WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DISCHARGE OF SWORN JUROR WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY AND INPUT FROM COUNSEL WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

/ ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SETTLING THE ACTION WITH ONE PLAINTIFF AND PROCEEDING TO TRIAL WITH THE OTHER PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have rejected a stipulation which settled the personal injury action with respect to one of the plaintiffs and allowed the matter to proceed to trial with respect to another plaintiff. The Second Department explained the deference which should be accorded a negotiated stipulation:

 

” [P]arties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course and, in so doing, they may stipulate away statutory, and even constitutional rights'” … . The subject stipulation of settlement was made after negotiations among counsel for the respective parties, and the litigants agreed to its terms. In consenting to the stipulation, these parties fashioned the basis upon which their particular controversy would be resolved by providing for the termination of the action with respect to [one plaintiff] and the continuation of the action with respect [the other]… . Astudillo v MV Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00915, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)/STIPULATION (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)/NEGLIGENCE (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)

/ ,

COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT, RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE, AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY; THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action should have been dismissed as a nullity. The defendant in this car-accident action had died before the complaint was filed. Therefore the complaint was a nullity. The defect could not be remedied by amending the complaint to name the decedent’s estate:

In this action to recover damages for alleged injuries arising from a vehicular accident, the plaintiff did not commence this action against the operator of the offending vehicle until several months after the operator died. Since “[a] party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person” … , the action was a nullity from its inception, and the plaintiff was instead required to commence an action against the personal representative of the decedent’s estate … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s attempt to amend the caption of the void complaint to designate the decedent’s estate as the defendant was invalid … . The plaintiff never properly commenced an action against the decedent’s personal representative, and the time within which to do so had expired prior to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Krysa v Estate of Qyra, 2016 NY Slip Op 00940, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT)

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for change of venue should have been granted. The court noted that the sole residence of a domestic corporation for venue purposes is the county designated in its certificate of incorporation:

 

“[T]o prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(1) to change venue, a defendant must show that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is improper, and also that the defendant’s choice of venue is proper” … . The venue of an action is proper in the county in which any of the parties resided at the time of commencement (see CPLR 503[a]…). “[T]he sole residence of a domestic corporation for venue purposes is the county designated in its certificate of incorporation, despite its maintenance of an office or facility in another county” … . Matoszko v Kielmanowicz, 2016 NY Slip Op 00942, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CORPORATION LAW (RESIDENCE OF DOMESTIC CORPORATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES IS COUNTY DESIGNATED ON CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION)/VENUE (MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VENUE (RESIDENCE OF DOMESTIC CORPORATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES IS COUNTY DESIGNATED ON CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION)

/ ,

APPLICATION FOR LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS; PURPOSE OF NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT EXPLAINED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim alleging injury in a slip and fall accident caused by a badly broken sidewalk in front of property owned by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Petitioner’s attorney had assumed the city, not the NYCHA, owned the abutting property. After noting that an error in identifying the correct public corporation was not a reasonable excuse, and further noting the NYCHA did not have notice of the accident by other means, the First Department explained the purpose of the notice requirement and why late notice was appropriate in this case:

 

After petitioner’s counsel realized that respondent NYCHA, not the City of New York, owned the property abutting the badly broken sidewalk where petitioner’s accident occurred, petitioner sought an extension of time to file a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). That statute confers upon the court “the discretion to determine whether to grant or deny leave to serve a late notice of claim within certain parameters” … . The factors to be considered by the court include: whether the failure to identify the proper party was an “excusable error,” whether the public corporation received “actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” within 90 days of the accident or “a reasonable time thereafter,” and whether the delay “substantially prejudiced” the public corporation’s ability to defend the claim on the merits (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The notice of claim requirement “is not intended to operate as a device to frustrate the rights of individuals with legitimate claims,” but to protect the public corporation from “unfounded claims” and ensure that it has an adequate opportunity “to explore the merits of the claim while information is still readily available” … .

While the error of petitioner’s counsel concerning the identity of the responsible public corporation does not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in giving notice … , “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application” … . Although NYCHA did not receive actual notice of the accident until the petition was served, it did not contest petitioner’s assertion that the condition of the badly broken sidewalk remains unchanged since the time of the accident and that there were no witnesses to the accident, so that NYCHA will not be substantially prejudiced by the eight-month delay in providing notice (… General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). NYCHA’s conclusory claim that the “passage of time may affect the availability or memories of potential witnesses is insufficient to establish prejudice” … . In light of the policies underlying General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), which is to be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purposes … . Matter of Richardson v New York City Hous. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 00909, 1st Dept 2-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, LATE NOTICE ALLOWE DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (LATE NOTICE ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)

/

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a personal injury (car accident) action was properly granted. The majority concluded the plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact about whether the injury was caused by the accident. Defendants’ experts opined the injury was caused by a pre-existing degenerative condition. The dissent felt that plaintiff’s expert raised a question of fact about causation because tearing of the relevant tissue was detected, a condition not mentioned by the defendants’ experts:

 

The dissent, taking the position that an issue of fact exists as to whether the accident caused plaintiff’s shoulder injury, does not deal with the aforementioned opinions of Dr. Lang and Dr. Lyons in plaintiff’s own medical records. It appears to be the dissent’s view that the support in plaintiff’s medical records for the shoulder injury having a degenerative origin are of no moment because plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Louis C. Rose, in his affirmation prepared for this litigation, offered a “diagnosis [that] . . . contrasts significantly with the one proffered by defendants’ experts.” However, the dissent offers no support for its view that there is a “factual disagreement” between the defense experts and plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Rose) on the diagnosis of the shoulder injury, as opposed to its etiology. Specifically, the dissent simply assumes that the defense experts’ diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the AC joint and chronic impingement syndrome were inconsistent with the presence of tears to the labrum and rotator cuff, which was Dr. Rose’s diagnosis. Nothing in the record supports the assumption that the conditions diagnosed by the defense experts do not result in tears to the labrum and rotator cuff. Franklin v Gareyua, 2016 NY Slip Op 00886, 1st Dept 2-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED TO REFUTE DEFENSE EXPERTS’ OPINION PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES DUE TO DEGENERATIVE CONDITION, NOT CAR ACCIDENT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED TO REFUTE DEFENSE EXPERTS’ OPINION PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES DUE TO DEGENERATIVE CONDITION, NOT CAR ACCIDENT)

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