You are here: / STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID...

Search Results

/

STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED, DENIAL OF CLAIM AFFIRMED.

The Third Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support claimant's allegation he was injured in an accident which no one witnesses and for which claimant did not seek immediate attention medical attention. The court noted that the presumption that unwitnessed accidents arose from employment did not create a presumption that an accident had happened:

… Workers' Compensation Law § 21, “which affords a presumption that an unwitnessed or unexplained workplace accident arose out of the injured person's employment, . . . cannot be utilized to demonstrate that an accident occurred in the first place”… . Matter of Siennikov v Professional Grade Constr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01889, 3rd Dept 3-17-16

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (STATUTORY PRESUMPTION INJURY AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID NOT CREATED A PRESUMPTION THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED)

/

CARRIER’S INABILITY TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CLAIMANT WARRANTED SUSPENSION OF COMPENSATION PAYMENTS.

The Third Department determined the carrier's inability to conduct an independent medical examination (IME) of claimant, ostensibly due to claimant's medical restrictions, warranted suspending claimant's compensation payments:

… [W]e note that “refusal by the claimant to submit to [an IME] at such time or times as may reasonably be necessary in the opinion of the [B]oard, shall bar the claimant from recovering compensation for any period during which he or she has refused to submit to such examination” (Workers' Compensation Law § 13-a [4] [b]). Whether suspending compensation payments on account of a claimant's attempt to frustrate a carrier's right to engage in an IME is a question of fact for the Board to resolve … . Here, there are opposing views as to why claimant did not submit to an IME. It was within the Board's purview to credit the carrier's assertion that it has engaged in extraordinary efforts to schedule the IME … and that such efforts were thwarted by claimant's perpetual requests and demands of rescheduling and relocating the IME … . As such, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant frustrated the carrier's right to engage an independent consultant by unreasonably refusing to attend an IME so as to warrant suspension of her benefits (see Workers' Compensation Law § 13-a [4] [b]…). Matter of Duncan v John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01881, erd Dept 3-17-16

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW (CARRIER'S INABILITY TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CLAIMANT WARRANTED SUSPENSION OF COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)/INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) (WORKERS' COMPENSATION, CARRIER'S INABILITY TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CLAIMANT WARRANTED SUSPENSION OF COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)

/

NEWSPAPER CARRIER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined claimant, who delivered newspapers for CFHI using her own car, was an employee entitled to unemployment benefits. Claimant ended her contract because of problems with her car:

Here, claimant responded to a newspaper advertisement soliciting motor route carriers and was retained by CFHI after meeting with its district manager. Claimant signed an independent contractor distributor agreement that (1) assigned her specific routes, (2) required her to furnish her own vehicle with proof of insurance, (3) set forth specific rates governing her compensation, (4) required her to deliver newspapers in a dry condition by specified times, (5) imposed a penalty upon her if CFHI had to make a delivery due to a subscriber complaint, and (6) provided for termination of the contract by CFHI in the event that claimant received more than 10 subscriber complaints. Although no formal training was provided by CFHI, its district manager reviewed a checklist with claimant containing detailed information that she needed to know to perform her duties. In addition, CFHI provided claimant with optional property damage and personal injury insurance for purchase through an independent carrier, made available supplies, such as rain bags and rubber bands, for claimant to purchase, prohibited claimant from placing any inserts or other materials in the newspapers to be delivered and fielded customer complaints before referring them to claimant. As in many of the other newspaper delivery carrier cases, the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the conclusion that CFHI retained a sufficient indicia of control over the performance of claimant's duties to establish the existence of an employment relationship … . Matter of Rosenfelder (Community First Holdings, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01888, 3rd Dept 3-17-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NEWSPAPER CARRIER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS)

/

CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVOKE HER DISCHARGE AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because attempted in good faith to comply with the residency requirement for her position with the city and therefore did not provoke her discharge:

“Provoked discharge . . . is a narrowly drawn legal fiction designed to apply where an employee voluntarily engages in conduct which transgresses a legitimate known obligation and leaves the employer no choice but to discharge him [or her]” … . “Whether [a] claimant's actions constituted a voluntary leaving of employment without good cause by provoking his [or her] discharge is a factual determination for the [B]oard” … . Here, claimant's testimony established that she began living with her cousin in an apartment in New York City in an attempt to comply with the employer's residency requirements, as well as to accommodate her school schedule. Although claimant also spent time with her husband in an apartment outside New York City, the employer acknowledged that an individual could maintain more than one residence, even if one was outside New York City, and still be in compliance with the residency requirement. Claimant pays her cousin money to live in the apartment and to help offset expenses, and she receives mail at that address, including bank account and credit card statements. Claimant also pays New York City income taxes. Moreover, claimant testified that, because she did not fully understand the residency requirement, she inquired to both her supervisor and the employer's personnel department as to whether she was considered to be in compliance with the necessary requirement; however, those inquiries went unanswered. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant did not voluntarily engage in conduct that transgressed the employer's mandate so as to find that she provoked her discharge … . Matter of Rosseychuk (City of New York–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01885, 3rd Dept 3-17-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVOKE HER DISCHARGE)

/

VERDICT FINDING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT BUT HER NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURY WAS INCONSISTENT AND AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The First Department determined a new trial on liability was required. The plaintiff fractured her ankle walking over cobblestones to board a bus which had parked five feet from the curb. The jury found plaintiff was negligent but her negligence was not the proximate cause of her injury. The First Department concluded the verdict was inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence:

The jury's finding that plaintiff was negligent, but that such negligence was not the proximate cause of her injuries, is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. The issues “are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . McKenzie v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 01918, 1st Dept 3-17-16

NEGLIGENCE (VERDICT FINDING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT BUT HER NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURY WAS INCONSISTENT AND AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/VERDICTS (NEGLIGENCE, VERDICT FINDING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT BUT HER NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURY WAS INCONSISTENT AND AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/SLIP AND FALL (VERDICT FINDING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT BUT HER NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURY WAS INCONSISTENT AND AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)

/

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE REQUIRED A GUARD ON THE SAW WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THERE WAS NO PLACE TO INSTALL A GUARD ON THE SAW.

The plaintiff was injured when he was struck by part of a saw blade which broke off from the hand-held reciprocating saw he was using. A provision of the Industrial Code, with a couple of exceptions not relevant to this case, requires guards on hand-held saws. The saw used by plaintiff did not have any guards. Defendant alleged there was no place to attach such a guard on the saw and the plaintiff testified he had never seen a reciprocating saw with a guard. The First Department upheld the motion court's finding that the Industrial Code applied to the saw in question as a matter of law. Therefore defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

We agree with the motion court that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that section 23-1.12(c) does not apply to this case. “[T]o support a claim under Labor Law § 241(6) . . . the particular [Industrial Code] provision relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications and not simply declare general safety standards or reiterate common-law principles” … . “The interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation and determination as to whether a particular condition is within the scope of the regulation present questions of law for the court” … .

Industrial Code § 23-1.12(c)(1) is sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim and is applicable because plaintiff was using a “power-driven, hand-operated saw” at the time of his accident. Defendant sought to use plaintiff's deposition testimony that he had never seen a blade cover or guard on that type of saw as expert testimony to establish that the reciprocating saw plaintiff was given was not covered by the Industrial Code provision in question … . Defendant, however, cannot avoid its duty to comply with section 23-1.12(c)(1) by asserting that the saw used by plaintiff had no base plate and could not accommodate a self adjusting guard. Section 23-1.12(c)(1) obligated defendant to ensure that the “power-driven, hand-operated saw” provided to plaintiff to perform his job was secured with guard plates to cover the saw blade. As the motion court observed, “[T]o interpret the regulation in any other manner [] would be to ineffectualize the regulation because employers, owners and contractors would only use tools that would minimize their liability.” Accordingly, we find that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12(c)(1)) is applicable to this case as a matter of law. Kelmendi v 157 Hudson St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01903, 1st Dept 3-17-16

LABOR LAW (INDUSTRIAL CODE REQUIRED A GUARD ON THE SAW WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE CLAIM THERE WAS NO PLACE TO INSTALL A GUARD ON THE SAW)/INDUSTRIAL CODE (LABOR LAW, INDUSTRIAL CODE REQUIRED A GUARD ON THE SAW WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE CLAIM THERE WAS NO PLACE TO INSTALL A GUARD ON THE SAW)

/

PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW LADDER WHICH FELL WAS DEFECTIVE TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff need not show the ladder which fell was defective to be entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, by submitting his own testimony that the ladder upon which he was standing to perform his work wobbled, and that both he and the ladder fell to the ground as he descended it to figure out why it had wobbled … . Plaintiff was not required to offer proof that the ladder was defective … .

In opposition, defendant failed to show that plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … and that it had provided plaintiff with adequate safety devices to prevent his fall … . Ocana v Quasar Realty Partners L.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 01902, 1st Dept 3-17-16

LABOR LAW (NO NEED TO SHOW LADDER WHICH FELL WAS DEFECTIVE TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/ , ,

BAILEE CANNOT, PURSUANT TO THE UCC, CONTRACT AWAY LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CARE IN STORING GOODS, PURPORTED WAIVER OF SUBROGATION UNENFORCEABLE.

The First Department determined the relationship between the fine art dealer (Chowalski) and the defendant warehouse was that of bailor/bailee with respect to stored artworks.  Under the UCC the bailee (warehouse) cannot contract away liability for damage caused by lack of due care. Therefore, the waiver of subrogation in the bailment agreement was not enforceable. There was a question of fact whether the failure to move the stored artworks as Hurricane Sandy approached constituted a failure to exercise the level of care mandated by the UCC:

UCC 7-204(a) provides that a “warehouse is liable for damages for loss of or injury to the goods caused by its failure to exercise care with regard to the goods that a reasonably careful person would exercise under similar circumstances” and “is not liable for damages that could not have been avoided by the exercise of that care.” UCC 7-204(b) provides that “[d]amages may be limited by a term in the warehouse receipt or storage agreement limiting the amount of liability in case of loss or damage beyond which the warehouse is not liable.” However, such limitations on liability are limited by UCC 7-202(c), which provides that such terms must not “impair its . . . duty of care under Section 7-204. Any contrary provision is ineffective.”

Here there is a question of fact concerning whether defendant, in failing to move Chowaiki's goods to either another floor, or to a location above ground level on the floor they were on, was reasonable under the circumstances. If the trier of fact finds that defendant did not act reasonably, then defendant may be liable for damages to Chowaiki's goods .

… [T]he court erred in finding that the waiver of subrogation contained in the agreement's loss/damage waiver is enforceable and bars this action.

Provisions purporting to exempt the bailee from liability for damage to stored goods from perils against which the bailor had secured insurance, even when caused by the bailee's negligence have been held to run afoul of the statutory scheme of UCC Article 7. XL Specialty Ins. Co. v Christie's Fine Art Stor. Servs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01901, 1st Dept 3-17-16

INSURANCE LAW (BAILEE CANNOT, UNDER THE UCC, CONTRACT AWAY LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CARE IN STORING GOODS, WAIVER OF SUBROGATION UNENFORCEABLE)/UCC (BAILEE CANNOT, UNDER THE UCC, CONTRACT AWAY LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CARE IN STORING GOODS, WAIVER OF SUBROGATION UNENFORCEABLE)/CONTRACT LAW (BAILEE CANNOT, UNDER THE UCC, CONTRACT AWAY LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CARE IN STORING GOODS, WAIVER OF SUBROGATION UNENFORCEABLE)/BAILMENT   (BAILEE CANNOT, UNDER THE UCC, CONTRACT AWAY LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CARE IN STORING GOODS, WAIVER OF SUBROGATION UNENFORCEABLE)/SUBROGATION  (BAILEE CANNOT, UNDER THE UCC, CONTRACT AWAY LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CARE IN STORING GOODS, WAIVER OF SUBROGATION UNENFORCEABLE)

/ ,

TACIT MISREPRESENTATION BY STUDENT DURING ADMISSIONS PROCESS ENTITLED LAW SCHOOL TO REFUSE TO AWARD LLM DEGREE AFTER STUDENT HAD COMPLETED COURSE REQUIREMENTS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined respondent law school had the authority to refuse an LLM degree to a student who had completed the course requirements because of the student's (tacit) misrepresentation at the time of admission to the program. The LLM program was open to students with a law degree from a foreign school. However, the student's law degree was from an online law school—information the student should have provided when he realized the school representative was under the impression his degree was from a foreign school. The student's law school transcript was not provided until after he had begun courses in the LLM program:

With regard to the contract cause of action, petitioner relies on case law holding that “[t]here exists an implied contract between the institution and its students such that if the student complies with the terms prescribed by the institution, he will obtain the degree which he sought” … . However, even assuming that such an implied contract might have been formed here, a school has the authority to rescind a student's admission or to dismiss a student from the school, even after course work has begun or been completed, where there were material misrepresentations or omissions in the student's application … . … Although petitioner here did not affirmatively or explicitly misrepresent facts on his application, he omitted the critical fact that the school from which he had received his J.D. degree was not a foreign law school, which fact disqualified him from eligibility for entry into the LL.M. program. By submitting the application, petitioner was implicitly stating that he satisfied the program's prerequisites for attendance, in particular, the requirement that he had attended a foreign law school. Indeed, he did more than omit that information; he allowed respondents to proceed with his admission knowing that they harbored a misconception regarding the nature of the institution that had awarded him a J.D. degree. Petitioner knew or should have known from the outset that (1) to be eligible for the program to which he applied, he had to have graduated from a foreign law school, and (2) on the date he was admitted, Touro's administrators had incorrectly concluded that Novus was a law school located in the Philippines. Since petitioner's admission was based upon an omission of a material fact of which petitioner was aware, petitioner's conditional admission was falsely obtained. Pursuant to the school's code of conduct, the terms of the application and the law the school had no contractual obligation to award a degree under these circumstances. Matter of Salvador v Touro Coll., 2016 NY Slip Op 01924, 1st Dept 3-17-16

EDUCATION-SHCOOL LAW (TACIT MISREPRESENTATIONS BY STUDENT DURING ADMISSIONS PROCESS ENTITLED LAW SCHOOL TO REFUSE TO AWARD LLM DEGREE AFTER STUDENT HAD COMPLETED COURSE REQUIREMENTS)/CONTRACT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, TACIT MISREPRESENTATIONS BY STUDENT DURING ADMISSIONS PROCESS ENTITLED LAW SCHOOL TO REFUSE TO AWARD LLM DEGREE AFTER STUDENT HAD COMPLETED COURSE REQUIREMENTS)

/

LETTERS TESTAMENTARY PROPERLY REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Second Department determined Surrogate's Court properly revoked letters testamentary without a hearing based upon undisputed proof the administrators were in conflict with each other, improvidently managed the property and failed to abide by the terms of a so-ordered stipulation:

The removal of a fiduciary pursuant to SCPA 711 and 719 is equivalent to a judicial nullification of the testator's choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established … . The Surrogate may remove a fiduciary without a hearing only where the misconduct is established by undisputed facts or concessions, where the fiduciary's in-court conduct causes such facts to be within the court's knowledge, or where facts warranting an amendment of letters are presented to the court during a related evidentiary proceeding … . Thus, revoking a fiduciary's letters without a hearing pursuant to SCPA 719 will constitute an abuse of discretion where the facts are disputed, where conflicting inferences may be drawn therefrom, or where there are claimed mitigating facts that, if established, would render summary removal an inappropriate remedy … . Matter of Kaufman, 2016 NY Slip Op 01849, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (LETTERS TESTAMENTARY PROPERLY REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING)/LETTERS TESTAMENTARY (PROPERLY REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING)

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