You are here: / PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID...

Search Results

/ ,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID NOT WORK FOR; BASED ON DISPUTED EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, DAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS DENIED BY SUPREME COURT; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, OVER A DISSENT, REVERSED, FINDING DAL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, over a dissenting opinion, determined defendant contractor, DAL, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff who fell from an A-frame ladder owned by DAL. Plaintiff had finished his measuring work using a ladder and scaffold which he had removed from the area. Plaintiff was then asked to confirm his measurements. He returned to the area and used an A-frame ladder that was already set up there. The ladder wobbled and he fell. It turned out the ladder was owned by DAL, with which plaintiff had no connection. There was disputed evidence the ladder was defective and DAL was alleged to have created a dangerous condition. Supreme Court found there was a question of fact supporting plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. The majority reversed, finding DAL did not owe plaintiff a duty of care:

Because DAL was not an owner, a general contractor, or a statutory agent of an owner or general contractor, the Labor Law § 200 claim against it could not stand … . * * *

… [G]iven that DAL did not enter into a contract with plaintiff or his employer, a duty of care to plaintiff cannot arise out of a contractual relationship … . Any contractual obligations DAL may have had to its employees or to JRM, the general contractor, did not extend to plaintiff … . The question that remains is whether DAL may still owe a duty of care to plaintiff. Generally, a contracting party does not owe a duty of care to a noncontracting third party … . There are three well-settled exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her duties, launches a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . * * *

… [T]he record establishes that the DAL ladder was left by a DAL employee in the fifth-floor pantry at some point in the late morning on the day of accident, and that plaintiff saw the unattended ladder when he returned to the fifth-floor pantry to review his measurements from earlier that morning. Plaintiff did not know or ascertain who owned the ladder … . … [P]laintiff did not obtain permission to use the ladder, … DAL did not supply or provide plaintiff with the ladder for use to complete his tasks, … DAL had no duty to provide plaintiff with a safe or adequate ladder, and … DAL did not supervise, direct or control plaintiff’s work. … DAL did not launch a force or instrument of harm. Thus, under Espinal, DAL did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff, and plaintiff’s common-law negligence claim against it cannot stand. Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. North, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03558, First Dept 7-2-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff fell from an allegedly defective ladder belonging to a contractor he did not work for. Because none of the Espinal factors applied, the contractor did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. There was a dissenting opinion.​

 

/

AS PLAINTIFF WAS REMOVING DUCTS FROM THE CEILING, A PORTION OF A DUCT STRUCK PLAINTIFF AND THE A-FRAME LADDER CAUSING HIM AND THE LADDER TO FALL TO THE FLOOR; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE LADDER WAS “UNSECURED;” PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was provided with an A-frame ladder to remove duct work from the ceiling. A portion of the duct fell causing the ladder to tip and plaintiff fell to the floor. The court noted that plaintiff need not prove the ladder was defective. In addition, summary judgment is appropriate even where, as here, plaintiff is the only witness to the incident:

Labor Law § 240(1) “mandates that owners and contractors provide devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to persons performing work covered by the statute” … . As the building owner, defendant had the duty to provide proper protection to plaintiff, a worker, pursuant to section 240(1) … .

For purposes of liability under section 240(1), “[i]t is sufficient . . . that adequate safety devices to prevent the ladder from slipping or to protect the plaintiff from falling were absent” … . Here, plaintiff’s testimony that he was not provided with any other safety protection except an unsecured ladder, which fell along with plaintiff when both were hit by the duct, established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Rivera v 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP, 2024 NY Slip Op 03562, First Dept 7-2-24

Practice Point: If plaintiff falls from an “unsecured” A-frame ladder, summary judgment on the Labor Las 240(1) cause of action is appropriate even where there is no proof the ladder was defective and there were no witnesses.

 

/ , ,

A DECEASED PARTY’S ADMISSIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY AS AGAINST THAT PARTY’S ESTATE AND SUPPORT THE PETITIONER-ESTATE’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT ESTATE WAS PRESENT DURING DISCUSSIONS AT THE HEART OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM AND MUST BE DISQUALIFIED UNDER THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined summary judgment dismissing the constructive trust cause of action and denying the motion to disqualify counsel because he would necessarily be a witness should not have been granted. Mother, Isabel, alleged, as Medicaid planning, she transferred $1.6 million to her daughter, Jody, to be held by Jody during Isabel’s lifetime and then distributed equally among Jody and her two siblings. Jody, however, predeceased Isabel. Upon learning the accounts set up by Jody had only $255,000 in them, Isabel asserted a claim against Jody’s estate for $2 million. Subsequently Isabel died. The lawyer who represents Jody’s executor in the instant proceedings, Leibowitz, took notes during a telephone conference among himself, Isabel and Jody when the Medicaid planning transfer was discussed. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. Suffice to say that there was sufficient evidence that Jody had made admissions concerning the Medicaid planning agreement which is the basis for the constructive trust cause of action. Jody’s admissions are not excludable as hearsay against her estate. The First Department also concluded Leibowitz’s status as witness required his disqualification:

… [A]n admission by a party is admissible against that party, as an exception to the hearsay rule, as evidence of the matter asserted in the admission, whether or not the party’s statement was against his or her interest at the time the statement was made … . Moreover, “[a]dmissions of a testator or intestate are competent against the estate” … . Accordingly, admissions by Jody are competent evidence against Jody’s executor, the representative of her estate. * * *

… [T]he 2009 notes reflect that Leibowitz discussed with Jody and Isabel the transfers at issue in this case, and Robert [Isabel’s son and executor of her estate] may examine Leibowitz at trial about Jody’s statements to him concerning any agreements, understanding or promises between herself and Isabel relating to those transfers. While it cannot be determined at this juncture whether Leibowitz’s testimony will be of material assistance to Robert in proving his claim, it remains the case that Leibowitz discussed matters related to that claim with Jody, and his recollections of Jody’s statements will be admissible against Jody’s executor as admissions. Because Leibowitz should be a witness in this case, his continued representation of Jody’s executor in this proceeding violates the advocate-witness rule and disqualification pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is appropriate. Matter of Newman, 2024 NY Slip Op 03544, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point:  A deceased party’s admissions are not hearsay as against that party’s estate.

Practice Point: An attorney who will be called as a witness for the opposing party must be disqualified under the advocate-witness rule.

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE DISFAVORED; HERE THE ISSUES IN EACH MOTION DID NOT OVERLAP AND APPELLANTS OFFERED A SUFFICIENT REASON. I.E. THE FIRST MOTION PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION IN WHICH HE ADMITTED SWERVING INTO APPELLANTS’ VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellants’ second summary judgment motion in this traffic accident case did not violate the prohibition of successive motions. The first motion dealt with whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law. The second motion addressed defendant’s liability. Appellants demonstrated a sufficient reason for the failure to include both issues in a single motion, i.e., the first motion was made before defendant was deposed and admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle:

… [A]ppellants’ first motion for summary judgment was on the issue of serious injury. Their second motion was on the issue of liability. The issue of whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law, “is a threshold matter separate from the issue of fault” and which must, therefore, be determined separately … . “[S]erious injury is quintessentially an issue of damages, not liability” … . Under the facts presented, appellants’ failure to raise the issue of liability in their first motion for summary judgment does not run afoul of the general disfavor of successive motions since the issue of serious injury was not germane to the issue of liability … .

Appellants have also established the existence of sufficient cause … . Here, the record indicates that the first motion for summary judgment was filed prior to the deposition testimony of defendant-respondent Phanor. In his testimony Phanor admitted that he swerved into appellant’s vehicle in order to avoid another unidentified vehicle. Priester v Phanor, 2024 NY Slip Op 03554, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Here the fact that successive summary judgment motions are generally prohibited was overlooked. The issues in the two motions did not overlap (one dealt with plaintiff’s damages, the other with defendant’s liability). And the first motion was brought before the deposition in which defendant admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle.

 

/ , ,

HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING FATHER’S “CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES” PETITION WITHOUT A HEARING AND REQUIRING FATHER TO PAY MOTHER’S COUNSEL’S FEES EXCEEDING $12,000 BASED UPON A FINDING THAT FATHER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL IN VIOLATION OF A COURT DIRECTIVE; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, NOT “THE NEED TO REGAIN MOTHER’S TRUST” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have focused on evidence father may have consumed alcohol in violation of the court’s directive and should have focused on the best interests of the child. Based solely on finding father had consumed alcohol and in the absence of a violation petition, father’s petition for a modification of custody based upon a change in circumstances was denied without a hearing and father was required to pay mother’s counsel’s fees exceeding $12,000. The counsel’s-fee ruling was reversed and the matter was remitted for a “change in circumstances” hearing:

As we must remit the matter to Family Court, we caution the court away from directing that the father completely abstain from the consumption of alcohol or dictating the specific type of treatment method the father must utilize beyond what is necessary to protect the child during his parenting time … . However, that is not to say that if the father’s treatment plan requires abstinence from alcohol that he is not required to comply with such plan. Similarly, we must stress that “the first and paramount concern of the court” must be the best interests of the child … , and that the court should not rely upon the father’s apparent need to “regain the trust of the mother” as it had so heavily throughout the orders on appeal.

We also agree with the father’s contention that Family Court abused its discretion in awarding $12,385.55 in counsel fees to the mother based upon the foregoing conclusion. “When exercising its discretionary powers [to award counsel fees], a court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions as well as the complexity of the case and the extent of legal services rendered” … . Here, despite no violation petition being filed against the father, the court found that “the father’s willful violation” of the prior custody order and his “deceptions concerning his alcohol consumption” warranted the imposition of counsel fees. Essentially this resulted in sanctioning the father for filing the modification petition based upon his subsequent consumption of alcohol … . Considering our determination as to the court’s mistaken determination that the father was unable to demonstrate a change in circumstances, we … reverse the court’s award of counsel fees to the mother as an abuse of discretion. Matter of Jacob L. v Heather L., 2024 NY Slip Op 03520, Third Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: If a Family Court judge focuses on something other than the best interests of the child, here father’s apparent consumption of alcohol in violation of a court directive and mother’s need to trust father, an appellate court may reverse the judge’s rulings as an abuse of discretion, as it did here.

 

/ , ,

FAMILY COURT HAS THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN A QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM (QRTP) AT EVERY PERMANENCY HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, applying an exception to the mootness doctrine (appellate relief had already been granted), determined Family Court has the decision-making authority to determine the appropriateness of a child’s placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) at every permanency hearing:

… [W]e find that Family Court has the decision-making authority as to the appropriateness of the child’s continued placement in a QRTP at every permanency hearing (see Family Ct Act §§ 1088[b], 1089[d][2][viii]). A contrary reading goes against the express purpose of the Family First Act, which is aimed at reducing the use of institutional group placements for children in foster care by limiting the length of time that they can spend there. The Family First Act, codified in New York State through amendments to the relevant provisions in the Family Court Act and Social Services Law, explicitly seeks to “ensure[] more foster children are placed with families by limiting federal reimbursement to only congregate care placements that are demonstrated to be the most appropriate for a child’s needs, subject to ongoing judicial review ” … . Matter of Malachi B. (Tania H.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03534, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Family Court has the authority to review and decide the appropriateness of a child’s placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) at every permanency hearing.

 

/ , ,

THE EDUCATION LAW PROVISIONS AND RELATED REGULATIONS (1) REQUIRING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION EQUIVALENT TO THAT PROVIDED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND (2) ALLOWING PUBLIC FUNDING TO BE CURTAILED AND REQUIRING STUDENTS TO ATTEND A DIFFERENT SCHOOL IF THE EQUIVALENCY TEST IS NOT MET ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over a dissent, determined the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Education concerning the evaluation of nonpublic schools and the cutting-off of services provided to those schools if they don’t meet the “equivalent-to-public-schools” test are valid and enforceable. The petitioners here are five yeshivas and related organizations:

Petitioners contend that the subject regulation provisions impose a penalty upon nonpublic schools that fail to meet the statute’s educational standard, an argument accepted by the dissent — but “penalty” is not an accurate characterization. First, prior to any negative substantial equivalency determination, nonpublic schools under review are engaged in a lengthy collaborative process, specifically designed to assist them in meeting the basic educational standards set forth within the Education Law (see 8 NYCRR 130.6 [a] [1] [iii]; 130.8 [d] [2]). To be sure, the Commissioner is statutorily authorized to impose civil and criminal penalties against a parent or guardian who fails to fulfill their duty under the compulsory education requirement (see Education Law §§ 3233, 3234), and to withhold certain public moneys from any city or district that “wil[l]fully omits and refuses to enforce” relevant statutory provisions (Education Law § 3234 [1]). The Education Law does not provide for any direct penalty upon nonpublic schools.

… By definition, a nonpublic school that fails to demonstrate substantial equivalency necessarily fails to fulfill the requirements of the compulsory education mandate … . Parents are obligated to comply with this mandate and, as such, the Commissioner’s declaration that a particular institution fails to meet the statutory standards required to meet that duty is no more, or less, than a necessary advisory to parents.

… [T]he loss of status as a substantially equivalent nonpublic school is not equivalent to closure; the institutions … continue to operate and provide some form of instruction. … [T]he Education Law, and the corresponding regulations, do not limit the parents’ opportunity to enroll their children in any extracurricular instruction or activities that they deem appropriate and helpful, and nothing in the regulations prohibits the children from being enrolled in such institutions — the sole limitation is that the statutory mandate must be met … . Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young, 2024 NY Slip Op 03523, Third Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: If a nonpublic school does not provide a level of education equivalent to that provided by the public schools, public funding of those schools can be curtailed and students can be required to attend a different school.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MED MAL CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO SERVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this medical malpractice case was entitled to dismissal of all claims because he was not properly served:

Defendant Michael B. Shannon, M.D. contends that this action should have been dismissed as against him for lack of timely service under CPLR 306-b … . It is undisputed on appeal that plaintiff failed to properly serve Shannon within 120 days of commencement of this action. Plaintiff does not purport to have demonstrated good cause for the delay. We find that an extension of time to serve Shannon was not warranted in the interest of justice.

Shannon’s unrebutted affidavit reflects that service was attempted at an office where he worked only as an independent contractor and that his residence and principal place of business were in Ohio. Plaintiff failed to make any effort to investigate further or to correct this error when Shannon failed to appear or answer. She did not file her default motion until nearly two years after commencing this action, which is well over the one-year deadline to make such a motion (see CPLR 3215[c]). The motion was also filed after discovery and motion practice were well underway. Diaz v Nasir, 2024 NY Slip Op 03536, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to serve defendant and did not make a timely motion to extend the time to serve, complaint dismissed.

 

/ , ,

DEBRIS LEFT BEHIND AFTER WORK ON ANOTHER PROJECT WAS NOT “INTEGRAL” TO THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS PERFORMING WHEN HE TRIPPED AND FELL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATIONS; IN ADDITION THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEBRIS; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on certain Labor Law 241(6) causes of action and the city’s motion to dismiss the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims should not have been granted. Plaintiff tripped on discarded plastic and rock debris from prior sidewalk demolition and construction. Plaintiff was working on reconstruction of a sidewalk bridge when he fell. Therefore the plastic and rock debris did not constitute material integral to the work plaintiff was performing as Supreme Court had held. In addition, although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed because the city did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition created by the debris:

The plastic and the rock were not integral to the work performed by plaintiff or his coworkers because it constituted an accumulation of debris from previous work that was left in a “passageway” or “working area” which should have been kept free of debris ​… . * * *​

The “task at hand” did not involve demolition. It is uncontested that plaintiff and his coworkers were dismantling and rebuilding a sidewalk bridge at a new location and that plaintiff fell when he slipped and tripped while manually transporting a heavy beam to the new location. While it is undisputed that Padilla was a general contractor that did demolition work, the court’s overly broad view of the integral to the work defense reads [Industrial Code] sections 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2) out of existence. Lourenco v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03540, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Debris left over from another job was not “integral” to the work being performed at the time of plaintiff’s fall, therefore the presence of the debris violated certain provisions of the Industrial Code.​

Practice Point: Although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, it did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Therefore the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not prove defendant’s default in this foreclosure action because the relevant business records were not attached to the motion papers:

“In order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must submit the mortgage and unpaid note, along with evidence of the default” … . Although the plaintiff submitted the mortgage and the unpaid note, it failed to submit admissible evidence of the default.

“An affiant’s assertion regarding the defendant’s default, without the business records upon which he or she relied in making such an assertion, constitutes inadmissible hearsay” … . It is the business record itself that serves as proof of the matter asserted and “not the foundational affidavit” … .

Here, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of the servicer and attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff, which set forth that, “[a]ccording to the business records that I have reviewed . . . the Defendant Roy Daleo failed to comply with the terms of the Note and Mortgage by defaulting in the monthly payment that was due on April 1, 2013 and monthly thereafter.” The affiant did not attach the business records upon which she relied in making her assertion regarding the defendant’s alleged default, and no such records were attached to the plaintiff’s motion. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s witness was therefore inadmissible hearsay and failed to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden … .  MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Daleo, 2024 NY Slip Op 03477, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: To prove a defendant’s default in a foreclosure action, the affidavit alleging default must be accompanied by the supporting business records. If the records are not provided, the affidavit is hearsay.

 

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