You are here: / PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATION THAT THE WATER MAIN ON DEFENDANTS’ NEIGHBORING...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATION THAT THE WATER MAIN ON DEFENDANTS’ NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BROKE CAUSING WATER TO ENTER PLAINTIFFS’ BASEMENT STATED A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE RES-IPSA-LOQUITUR THEORY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the allegation that defendants’ water main broke causing water to enter plaintiffs’ basement supported a negligence action based on the res-ipsa-loquitur theory. The trespass and private nuisance causes of action should have been dismissed because there was no evidence of defendants’ intentional conduct:

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on so much of the cause of action alleging negligence as was based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. “For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, a plaintiff must establish three conditions: ‘[f]irst, the event must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; second, it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and third, it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff'” … . “The doctrine has been applied to water main breaks and this type of event has frequently been cited as a typical example of a case where the doctrine is commonly applicable” … . … Because the defendants did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on so much of the cause of action alleging negligence as was based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the burden did not shift to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard … . Huang v Fort Greene Partnership Homes Condominium, 2024 NY Slip Op 03471, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: A water main break on defendant’s property causing water to enter the neighboring plaintiff’s basement states a negligence cause of action under the res-ipsa-loquitur theory.

 

/ , , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT BY DECEDENT’S FORMER ATTORNEYS WHO HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DECEDENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HAVE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER SUBSITITUTED AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT REQUIRED NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN DECEDENT’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the death of the defendant in this traffic accident case divested the court of jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss by the decedent’s former attorneys, who had not been substituted for the decedent, should not have been considered by the court. The Appellate Division also noted that plaintiff’s motion to substitute decedent’s daughter as a representative for the decedent required notice to all persons interested in decedent’s estate:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” .. . “The death of a party terminates his or her attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party” … . Although the determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party is an exception to a court’s lack of jurisdiction, here, the motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint was made by the former attorneys for the decedent purportedly on behalf of the decedent. Since the former attorneys lacked the authority to act, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion … . Accordingly, so much of the order as granted the motion purportedly made on behalf of the decedent is a nullity.

Further, any motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 requires that notice be provided to persons interested in the decedent’s estate … . Here, the plaintiff failed to provide notice to persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion with leave to renew upon service on persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Fazilov v Acosta, 2024 NY Slip Op 03470, Second Deppt 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant in a traffic accident case died. The decedent’s former attorneys did not have the authority to make a motion to dismiss and the court should not have considered it.​

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s motion to have decedent’s daughter substituted for decedent required notice all persons interested in decedent’s estate.

 

/ ,

IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR THAT IT LACKED CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IN ADDITION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property management company (Fulton) was not entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff fell when a permanent ladder attached to the building came loose:

… [T]he Fulton defendants failed to establish … that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the ladder, which the plaintiff described in his deposition as rusty and old. The evidence the Fulton defendants submitted in support of their motion “did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition of the [ladder] should have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection” … . Furthermore, the Fulton defendants failed to establish … that they lacked control over the work site … . * * *

“The collapse of a scaffold or ladder for no apparent reason while a plaintiff is engaged in an activity enumerated under the statute creates a presumption that the ladder or scaffold did not afford proper protection” … . Through the submission of his deposition testimony, the plaintiff established … that he was exposed to an elevation risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), that the ladder collapsed for no apparent reason, and that the inadequately secured ladder was a proximate cause of his injuries … .

… [I]n opposition … the … defendants … failed to present a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a triable issue of fact—that there was no statutory violation and that the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident … . Valentin v Stathakos, 2024 NY Slip Op 03512, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the permanent ladder which came loose causing plaintiff’s fall was “old and rusty” which raised a question of fact whether the defendant property manager had constructive notice of the condition. The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed.

Practice Point: In the absence of evidence plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the collapse of a ladder warrants summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(10 cause of action.

 

/ ,

IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pollution exclusion in the plaintiffs’ insurance policies applied and plaintiffs were not required to defend and indemnify the defendant, which allegedly caused a gasoline additive (MTBE) to pollute groundwater. The fact that the additive was a legal substance required by the EPA did not matter:

… [I]t is clear that even if MTBE was not a pollutant in the context of its use as a gasoline additive, it was a pollutant in the context of its release into groundwater … . * * *

Qualified pollution exclusions are characterized by an exception for pollution where the discharge or release of the pollutant is “sudden and accidental” … . The terms “sudden” and “accidental” each “have separate meanings, [both] of which must be established for the exception to nullify the pollution coverage exclusion” … .. “[T]he meaning of sudden in the pollution exclusion exception” has a “temporal quality” (id. [emphasis omitted]), which is only met where the discharge occurs “abruptly or within a short timespan, of a significant quantity of the pollutant sufficient to have some potentially damaging environmental effect” … .

Here, with respect to the plaintiffs’ … policies that contained qualified pollution exclusions, the defendant failed to meet its burden to “demonstrate a reasonable interpretation of the underlying complaint[s] potentially bringing the claims within the sudden and accidental discharge exception to exclusion of pollution coverage, or to show that extrinsic evidence exists that the discharge was in fact sudden and accidental” … . In other words, the type of pollution alleged, which occurred undetected over many years, was not sudden within the meaning of the applicable law … . St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v Getty Props. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 03510, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: A “pollution exclusion” in an insurance policy applies where, as here, the pollution occurs over years, as opposed to occurring suddenly and unexpectedly.

Practice Point: A substance can be legal and approved for use in gasoline by the EPA but constitute a “pollutant” when found in groundwater.

 

/ ,

AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR; THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED COVERAGE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE INSURED’S SPOUSE; IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THE INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THE INSURED’S SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the uninsured motorist claim by the driver’s spouse was precluded based on the policy. Avila was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her spouse who lost control of the car:

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(g)(1), “no policy or contract shall be deemed to insure against any liability of an insured because of death of or injuries to his or her spouse or because of injury to, or destruction of property of his or her spouse unless express provision relating specifically thereto is included in the policy.” “‘[I]n the absence of an express provision in an insured’s policy, a carrier is not required to provide insurance coverage for injuries sustained by an insured’s spouse'” … . This provision creates “a statutory presumption that interspousal liability is excluded from coverage unless an express provision relating specifically thereto is included in the policy” … . Moreover, here, the language of GEICO’s policy provides that its liability coverage does not apply “[t]o any insured for bodily injury to the spouse of that insured.” Thus, Avila’s uninsured motorist claim was precluded … . Matter of Government Employees Ins. Co. v Avila, 2024 NY Slip Op 03481, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the insured, Avila’s spouse, lost control of the car and hit a parked car. Avila was a passenger and was injured. The policy did not include a provision expressly covering the insured’s spouse. In addition, the policy expressly stated the insured’s spouse was not covered. Avila’s uninsured motorist claim was precluded.

 

/

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF STEPPED ON A SMALL WOODEN “PATCH” COVERING A HOLE IN THE FLOOR AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE HOLE; DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE WAS REJECTED; THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT NEED NOT BE FORESEEN; IT IS ENOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ELEVATION-RELATION RISK AND NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was walking on a floor which had holes in it where mechanical equipment had been removed. When plaintiff stepped on a 12-inch by 12-inch “patch” which had been placed over a hole his leg went through and he was injured. The First Department rejected defendant’s argument that the incident was not foreseeable:

Plaintiff was working in the interstitial space, approximately eight feet from the 11th floor below, and was thus exposed to the effects of gravity. … [T]he affixing of “harnesses and safety lines attached to a safe structure” are the type of safety devices envisioned by § 240(1) to prevent a worker from falling through a collapsing floor … , which plaintiff was not provided.

… “A plaintiff in a case involving the collapse of a permanent structure must establish that the collapse was ‘foreseeable,’ not in a strict negligence sense, but in the sense of foreseeability of plaintiff’s exposure to an elevation-related risk”… . To establish foreseeability, “[a] plaintiff need not demonstrate that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or the injuries occurred was foreseeable; it is sufficient that [plaintiff] demonstrate that the risk of some injury from defendant’s conduct was foreseeable” … . This foreseeability analysis … applies to the partial collapse of a permanent structure … . Ciaurella v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 03455, First Dept 6-25-24

Practice Point; This is the second Labor Law 240(1) case in recent weeks involving the collapse of a permanent structure (a roof in the prior case and here a floor). In both cases the Appellate Division rejected the argument the accident was not foreseeable.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MEET THE COURT’S FILING DEADLINE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure case did not have sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint sua sponte (another reminder that sua sponte dismissals of complaints rarely survive appeal);

“‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . “[A] court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by an arbitrary date set by the court” … . “To obtain appellate review of an order or portion of an order issued sua sponte, a party may move to vacate the order or portion of the order and appeal as of right to the Appellate Division if that motion to vacate is denied” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the … order and to restore the action to the court’s active calendar, as the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to file an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by July 26, 2017, was not a sufficient ground upon which to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint … . James B. Nutter & Co. v Heirs & distributees of the estate of Rose Middleton, 2024 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point; Failure to meet a filing deadline set by the court was not an adequate reason for the judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the foreclosure complaint.

 

/ ,

LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDERS MUST REGISTER UNDER SORA FOR 20 YEARS; LOW RISK-LEVEL SEX OFFENDERS WHO WERE REGISTERED IN ANOTHER STATE AND WHO RELOCATE TO NEW YORK ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR THE TIME THEY WERE REGISTERED OUT-OF-STATE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over two dissenting opinions (three judges), determined sex offenders registered in other states who are designated level-one risks upon relocating to New York are not entitled to credit for the time they were registered in another state:

Generally, those convicted of sex offenses in other states must register under the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] …) upon relocating to New York … . While the statute requires some sex offenders to register for life … , those in the lowest risk category register for a term of 20 years … . The issue here is whether the statute entitles sex offenders who are classified in that lowest risk category upon relocating to New York to credit for their time registered as sex offenders under the laws of other states. We hold that it does not … .

Defendant in each of these appeals was convicted in another state of an offense that required him to register as a sex offender under the laws of that state. Some years later, each defendant relocated to New York and was required to register as a level-one risk under SORA. Neither is designated a sexual predator, sexually violent offender, or predicate sex offender. During the risk level determination hearings under Correction Law § 168-k (2), each defendant requested that Supreme Court order him registered nunc pro tunc to the date when he registered as a sex offender in the state where he was convicted of his sex offense, in effect giving him credit for the time registered in the foreign jurisdiction against the 20-year registration period. * * *

We recognize that the statute, as written, may lead to unfair results in some circumstances. For example, an offender with a minimal risk of reoffense who has spent substantial time compliant with an effectively administered out-of-state registry scheme without having reoffended would seem to deserve credit for that time as a matter of policy. Moreover, the diversion of public resources and attention towards offenders such as these arguably undermines the state’s effort to protect the public against genuinely dangerous offenders. On the other hand, not all state registry schemes are necessarily created equal, for example, in terms of supervision and registration requirements, and there is no specific mechanism under SORA for a court to determine whether a foreign state’s administration of its registry is as exacting as New York’s or the extent to which a particular offender complied with his obligations under that state’s statute and remained free of reoffense. People v Corr, 2024 NY Slip Op 03379, CtApp 6-20-24

Practice Point: Low risk-level sex offenders who relocate to New York are not entitled to credit for the time they were registered out-of-state. They must remain registered in New York for twenty years.

 

/ ,

HERE A STIPULATION BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT SETTING THE RENT FOR A RENT STABILIZED LEASE VIOLATED THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) RENDERING THE STIPULATION VOID (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined “an agreement waiving a benefit of the Rent Stabilization Laws is void as against public policy. This rule is not altered by the tenant’s status. Accordingly, the stipulation at issue here, which required the tenant to waive his right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA), is void and did not provide a path to deregulation of the subject apartment:”

The Stipulation between McKinney [the tenant] and the landlord provided that McKinney “agrees to accept and the landlord agrees to offer a rent stabilized lease” in McKinney’s name at a rate of “$650 per month.” It also stated that “$1,650 per month is a fair rent for [the] apartment being removed from Rent Control,” a proviso apparently intended to set the initial legal regulated rent under the Rent Stabilization Laws (RSL). The Stipulation further provided that “[f]or as long as Ed McKinney is the tenant, his rent shall be $650 per month plus allowable rental increases.” The effect of that provision, which neither party disputes, was to ensure that McKinney would pay a preferential rate of $650, with subsequent increases tied to this number for the duration of his tenancy. McKinney also agreed “not to challenge the rent,” thereby waiving his right to challenge the amount of the initial rent through a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA) proceeding. * * *

By securing McKinney’s explicit agreement “not to challenge the rent,” the Stipulation waived his right to file an FMRA. That bargain circumvented the statutory process, and consequently the Stipulation is void in its entirety as a matter of law … . Because the Stipulation is void, [the landlord’s] registration statement based on the Stipulation is as well, and therefore “neither party is entitled to rely on it” … and it cannot serve as the basis for deregulation. It remains to be determined whether the apartment was properly deregulated on some other ground. Liggett v Lew Realty LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03378, CtApp 6-30-24

Practice Point: Re: rent stabilized leases, a stipulation which sets the rent but provides that the tenant will not challenge the rent violates the Rent Stabilization Law rendering the stipulation void.

 

/

SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TRANSPORT CHILDREN TO THEIR PRIVATE SCHOOLS WHEN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE CLOSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined a school district is not required to transport children to their private schools when the public schools are closed:

Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) provides: “Sufficient transportation facilities (including the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles) shall be provided by the school district for all the children residing within the school district to and from the school they legally attend, who are in need of such transportation because of the remoteness of the school to the child or for the promotion of the best interest of such children.”

The issue on appeal is whether by requiring that school districts provide “sufficient” transportation, the statute obligates school districts to afford nonpublic students transportation on days their schools are in session, including days when public schools are closed. We conclude it does not. Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. v Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 03377, CtApp 6-20-24

Practice Point: The Education Law does not require school districts to transport students to their private schools when the public schools are closed.

 

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