You are here: / Wall Surrounding the Edge of a Roof Is Not a Safety Device

Search Results

/

Wall Surrounding the Edge of a Roof Is Not a Safety Device

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined plaintiff’s injury was elevation-related and therefore was covered under Labor Law 240(1).  Plaintiff was standing on a building-roof using hand signals to guide a crane when he fell from the roof. Supreme Court reasoned plaintiff could have accomplished his job while staying away from the edge of the roof and, therefore, the accident was not elevation-related within the meaning of the statute. The Third Department rejected that reasoning and noted that the parapet wall around the edge of the roof was part of the structure of the building and could not, therefore, be considered a safety device:

Supreme Court determined that his injuries did not flow from an elevation-related hazard, as plaintiff was not “required to work at an elevation” and could have stayed away from the edge of the roof by directing the crane operator via cell phone … . This determination, however, ran against the undisputed proof that plaintiff had to work somewhere on the roof in order to signal the crane operator and that hand signaling was the usual method of doing so … . His decision to employ an accepted method of signaling while performing necessary work on the roof, even if a safer method existed, constituted nothing more than “comparative fault that is not a defense under the statute”… .

… A parapet wall surrounded the edge of the roof, but “a permanent appurtenance to a building does not normally constitute the functional equivalent of a scaffold or other safety device within the meaning of the statute” … . Salzer v Benderson Dev. Co., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06001, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/ , , ,

In the Absence of Prejudice to Defendants, It Was Not Error to Allow Evidence of a Theory of Liability Not Explicitly Referenced in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars

The Third Department determined evidence of a theory of liability that was not explicitly included in the pleadings and bill of particulars was not error. The theory was implicit in the pleadings and the defendants could not have been surprised by the related evidence. The court noted it would have been better had the plaintiffs moved to conform the pleadings to the evidence:

Generally, a party is limited to presenting evidence at trial that supports a cause of action or theory of recovery that was either pleaded in the complaint or asserted in the bill of particulars … . However, evidence concerning a specific theory or injury not mentioned in the bill of particulars may nonetheless avoid exclusion where such proof necessarily flows from the information conveyed in the pleadings and where the defendants should have been aware of the basis thereof… .

The contested theory of liability in this case is based on the allegedly erroneous interpretation of plaintiff’s February CT scan by Beatty (hereinafter referred to as the Beatty theory). It is worth noting that, because the complaint and bills of particulars do not contain an express articulation of the Beatty theory, the better practice certainly would have been for plaintiff to seek leave to amend his pleadings in advance of trial or at least have moved to conform the pleadings to the proof after the trial was underway. However, we nonetheless find that Supreme Court’s determinations allowing plaintiff to advance the Beatty theory at trial, including permitting plaintiff’s expert to offer testimony on the theory, do not constitute reversible error. In our view, the complaint— * * * which reference[s] the February CT scan as a basis for a departure from accepted medical practice — [was] sufficient to notify defendants of the Beatty theory and, as such, permit that theory of liability to be advanced at trial without prejudice. Simply put, we are unpersuaded by defendants’ position that they were not aware of the Beatty theory as a basis for a potential finding of medical malpractice. Boyer v Kamthan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05983, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/

Defendant Should Have Been Awarded Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Fact that Defendant’s Vehicle Was Double-Parked Was Not the Cause of the Accident

Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department determined the fact that defendant’s (Pepsi’s) vehicle was double-parked did not warrant denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion. The fact that the vehicle was double-parked was merely the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident, not the cause. Plaintiff’s claim that sunlight temporarily blinded him did not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for his striking the rear of the Pepsi vehicle:

In this rear-end collision case, even assuming that the Pepsi vehicle, hit from behind, was illegally double-parked, that fact, standing alone “does not automatically establish that such double-parking was the proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, the record shows that the double-parked vehicle, given the road conditions at the time of the accident, namely, the favorable weather, the time of day, and the relatively minimal amount of traffic on the road at the time, “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but was not one of its causes” … . Plaintiff’s proffered excuse for the accident, that sunlight temporary blinded the driver of the rear vehicle, does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision … . Barry v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06034, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

/ ,

Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined an elevator maintenance company (The Elevator Man) did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who was injured when the elevator free-fell three stories in September 2010. The maintenance contract with the elevator maintenance company had been cancelled for non-payment, but the company had subsequently agreed to do, and had done, emergency repairs when called to do so. Although there was evidence the elevator maintenance company was negligent re: repairs done in early 2010, applying the “Espinal” criteria, the First Department held there was no evidence the maintenance company “launched an instrument of harm,” the only available theory of liability:

If the issue were limited to whether The Elevator Man was negligent, a question of fact would preclude summary judgment. However, the issue is not that simple.

“Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]).

Where a contractor has entered into a contract to render services, it may only be held to have assumed a duty of care to nonparties to the contract in three situations:

“(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his 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” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140 [internal citations omitted]).

To the extent plaintiff relies on the inspection performed by The Elevator Man on January 14, 2010 in which it gave the elevator a “Satisfactory” rating, despite a “Cease Use” violation that had been issued on November 1, 2009, The Elevator Man was subject to the maintenance contract then in effect. To the extent plaintiff argues that The Elevator Man was negligent in the work it performed on May 26, 2010, any duty The Elevator Man had toward him could not be based on the terminated 2009 maintenance agreement; nevertheless, The Elevator Man continued to be subject to a more limited contract with the manager of the parking facility, in which it agreed to respond to emergency calls, upon payment of an agreed fee.

We find the rule set forth in Espinal to apply here. It is conceded that of the three possibilities listed in Espinal, only the first could provide a basis for liability to plaintiff: “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm'” (id. at 140). However, even accepting for purposes of this analysis that The Elevator Man negligently inspected the elevator on January 14, 2010 and negligently failed to correctly assess the condition of the elevator and necessary repair on May 26, 2010, it cannot be said to have launched a force or instrument of harm. That is, in failing to correctly inspect or repair the elevator, it did not create or exacerbate an unsafe condition. Medinas v MILT Holdings LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06044, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

/ , ,

Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Proceeding

The Third Department determined that the estate of one of the mortgage-holders was a necessary party in a foreclosure proceeding. The court explained the relevant law:

“In an action to foreclose a mortgage, all parties having an interest, including persons holding title to the subject premises, must be made a ‘party . . . to the action'” … . Although defendant did not specifically raise the argument that decedent’s estate was a necessary party to the instant action, “the absence of a necessary party may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion” … . …. [W]here two individuals are the co-holders of a mortgage and one dies, the plaintiffs in a related foreclosure action would be the living mortgagee — or, in this case, his assignee … — and the personal representative of the deceased mortgagee … .

Here, given the lack of evidence that the corpus and distribution of decedent’s estate have previously been determined, such determination for the first time could inequitably affect decedent’s estate … . We find that decedent’s estate is therefore a necessary party to this action, as “[t]he rights, interests and equities of all of the parties claiming an interest in the mortgaged premises . . . should be settled and determined before any judgment of foreclosure and sale is entered” … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Sulyman, 2015 NY Slip Op 05989, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/

Claim for Psychological Injury Should Have Been Upheld—Retail Employee Was Directed to Submit False Reserve Orders for a Product to Deceive Manufacturer

The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a retail employee suffered compensable psychological injury because he was directed by a supervisor to submit false reserve orders for a product in order to deceive the manufacturer.  The Workers’ Compensation Board disagreed and disallowed the claim. The Third Department reinstated the claim, finding the Board’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence:

The WCLJ found claimant’s testimony to be credible and determined, among other things, that he had been directed by a supervisor to submit false reserve orders in order to deceive the manufacturer and that credit card numbers were included in the reserve orders. The WCLJ concluded that claimant sustained a mental injury as a result of “the stress of being directed to engage in deceptive business practices” and that this stress was greater than that experienced in the normal work environment because “[p]ressure to engage in unethical and illegal practices . . . cannot be considered a normal work environment.” The Board subsequently disallowed the claim, finding that, because all of the employees in claimant’s department were pressured to place reserve orders and were given the same instruction, claimant’s stress was not greater than that of similarly situated workers.

We reject this analysis. The Board neither contradicted nor commented upon the findings of the WCLJ that claimant’s supervisors directed him to engage in a deceptive business practice by submitting falsified reserve orders, and it did not exercise its power to reject the underlying credibility determinations … . Thus, the remaining basis for the Board’s conclusion that claimant was not subjected to stress greater than that experienced in a normal workplace is that other employees were similarly directed to engage in wrongful conduct. This analysis is untenable; the imprimatur of “normal” cannot be placed upon a workplace where an employee is directed to carry out a deceptive, unethical or potentially illegal practice because an employer also gave that direction to other employees … . The mere fact that other employees may have received the same instruction cannot support this conclusion. Here, there was no other evidence from which it may be concluded that directions to place false reserve orders constituted part of a normal work environment for similarly situated employees. The employer’s witnesses testified that corrective action — including termination — had been taken when similar practices occurred at the store in the past, and claimant testified that he would have been fired for such conduct in other upscale department stores where he had previously worked. Accordingly, we find that the Board’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Cox v Saks Fifth Ave., 2015 NY Slip Op 06003, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/

Defendant Entitled to Jury Instruction on Agency Defense Re: Drug Sale and Possession Charges

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the agency defense to drug sale and possession charges. Because the request for the instruction was denied, the defendant was granted a new trial.  The Third Department explained the relevant facts and law:

“Under the agency doctrine, ‘a person who acts solely as the agent of a buyer in procuring drugs for the buyer is not guilty of selling the drug to the buyer, or of possessing it with intent to sell it to the buyer'” … . “The issue of whether a defendant is criminally responsible as a seller, or merely a purchaser doing a favor for a friend, is generally a factual question for the jury to resolve on the circumstances of the particular case” … . “A trial court must grant a request for an agency charge when, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, some evidence, however slight[,] supports the inference that the [defendant] was acting, in effect, as an extension of the buyer” … .

Here, defendant did not initiate the subject transactions. Rather, the CI, who was acquainted with defendant, contacted him to initiate both buys. Before the first buy, defendant said to the CI, with regard to the supplier, “when she meets me and you she’s going to sell us the eight,” which shows that defendant aligned himself with the CI on the buyer’s side of the transaction. At the time of the first buy, defendant and the CI met in defendant’s driveway and talked about defendant’s girlfriend, car and job while they waited for the supplier to arrive with the drugs. When the supplier arrived, the CI asked defendant to get the drugs from her so that he could see them before he paid, and defendant complied. Defendant retrieved nine bags of heroin from the supplier, explaining to the CI that there were “nine here cause [he was] gonna get one too”; again, he was identifying himself on the buyer’s side of the transaction. Defendant’s girlfriend testified that he did not benefit from the sales to the CI. People v Nowlan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05973, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

/

Exclusion of Alleged Gang Members from Courtroom During Testimony of Fearful Witness Was Proper

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly closed the courtroom to alleged gang members during the testimony of a witness who indicated she was afraid of the gang members. The Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

In order to comport with the requirements of the Sixth Amendment, a courtroom closure must satisfy a four-prong standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Waller v Georgia: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” (2) “the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest,” (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,” and (4) “it must make findings adequate to support the closure” (Waller v Georgia, 467 US at 48…).

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court’s partial closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the eyewitness to the stabbing by excluding a certain group of men from the courtroom was not error. The witness, who had entered the courthouse from a side entrance and had remained secluded in a room not accessible to the public before entering the courtroom, wore a hat pulled down low over her face and a hoodie into the courtroom and immediately requested a recess upon entering the courtroom and then refused to testify. Upon hearing the witness express her fear of testifying because of certain men in the audience whom she identified as affiliated with the defendant and belonging to a particular gang, the court conducted a closed courtroom hearing to ascertain the nature of the witness’s fear and its effect upon her ability to testify in open court. The witness named one of the men and testified that she knew each of the men from her neighborhood, that they were members of a gang with which the defendant was affiliated, that the gang was a rival gang to the one in which her boyfriend was involved, and there had been prior violent altercations between the men in the courtroom and the witness’s boyfriend. The witness testified that she believed that the men would attempt to kill her if she testified against the defendant. Further, she testified that one of the men made eye contact with her and shook his head at her in the courtroom, which she interpreted as a threat not to testify. The witness was very frightened by the idea that the men, who already knew her name, would now know her face. The evidence of the witness’s extreme fear of testifying in open court before the men, her refusal to do so, the trial court’s observations that, based upon the witness’s demeanor, the fear was genuine, together with the fact that, although approximately 15 or so people were present during the stabbing of the decedent, the witness was the only person to come forward to the police, constitutes sufficient proof to establish an overriding interest that was likely to be prejudiced unless the courtroom was closed to the individuals of whom the witness was fearful … . In addition, the scope of the closure was no broader than was necessary. The exclusions were limited to the men identified by the witness as causing her fear, and their exclusion was limited to the duration of her testimony … . Furthermore, the trial court explored the possibility of limiting the courtroom exclusion to only the individual who had shaken his head at the witness, but the witness indicated that her fear would not be abated if the other men she recognized remained in the courtroom. Accordingly, this record shows that the trial court, in directing the exclusion at issue, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the interest at stake … . People v Dawson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05959, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

/ ,

Assault-Related Convictions Not Supported by the Weight of the Evidence/Prosecution Held to Erroneous Jury Instruction Which Was Not Challenged

The Second Department determined defendant’s convictions were not supported by the weight of the evidence and the prosecution should be held to an erroneous jury instruction which was not challenged. The defendant was acquitted of possession of a weapon and was not charged with acting in concert with others. Absent any evidence the defendant caused the injury to the victim his assault-related convictions could not stand. The jury was erroneously instructed that burglary requires proof the defendant unlawfully entered “and” (not “or”) remained in the victim’s dwelling. Because the erroneous instruction was not challenged, the People are held to it. The burglary conviction could not stand because the defendant was invited into the dwelling:

The evidence presented by the People was that the defendant alone caused serious physical injury to the victim by slashing him with an unidentified dangerous instrument. The jury was not charged that the defendant was acting-in-concert with the others. While the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault in the first degree and gang assault in the first degree, he was acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. In conducting our weight of the evidence review, we may consider the jury’s acquittal of the defendant on that count … . Given the victim’s testimony that, during the struggle, he heard the defendant say “no, don’t stab him, don’t stab him,” and that he did not see who slashed him, and considering that testimony along with the jury’s acquittal of the defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, we find that the evidence, when properly weighed, did not establish that the defendant caused serious physical injury to the victim or that he did so by means of a dangerous instrument.

While a person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he or she either knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein (see Penal Law § 140.30), here, the trial court, without objection, erroneously instructed the jury that, in order to find the defendant guilty of the two counts of this charge, the People were required to prove that the defendant “unlawfully entered and remained” in the victim’s dwelling (emphasis added). Since the People did not object to this erroneous charge, they were “bound to satisfy the heavier burden” … . Given that the evidence demonstrated that the defendant knocked on the victim’s door and announced his presence, and that the victim voluntarily invited the defendant into the apartment, the People failed to satisfy their burden as to these two counts. People v Samuels, 2015 NY Slip Op 05968, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

/

Court Cannot Condition Future Visitation On Parent’s Participation in Counseling or Treatment

The Second Department noted that a court may not condition future visitation upon a parent’s participation in counseling or treatment because such a condition effectively removes control over visitation from the court:

A court hearing a pending proceeding or action involving issues of custody or visitation may properly order a mental health evaluation of a parent, if warranted, prior to making a custody or visitation determination (see Family Ct Act § 251[a]…). In addition, a court may properly direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a visitation or custody order … .

However, “a court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or reapplication for visitation rights” … . The rationale underlying this rule is that “a court may not properly delegate to mental health professionals the ultimate determination of whether a parent will be awarded visitation rights,” a determination that is properly made by the court … . Lajqi v Lajqi, 2015 NY Slip Op 05916, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

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