You are here: / Homeowner Not Liable for Construction-Related Death—Criteria for...

Search Results

/

Homeowner Not Liable for Construction-Related Death—Criteria for Homeowner’s Exemption and Supervisory Control by Homeowner Described in Some Depth

The Third Department determined the homeowner was not liable to plaintiff’s decedent (under Labor Law 200, 240, 241 (6) or common law negligence) based on the homeowners’ exemption and absence of supervision (by the homeowner) of plaintiff’s decedent’s work.  The homeowner had provided architectural plans to a contractor for an addition to the home.  Plaintiff’s decedent was digging a trench for the basement and was buried and killed when the walls of the trench collapsed.  The court explained the applicable law in unusual detail:

Although Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 “impose nondelegable duties upon contractors, owners and their agents to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in various construction-related activities” …, the Legislature carved out an exception for “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (Labor Law §§ 240 [1]; 241 [6]…). “In this context, the phrase direct or control is to be strictly construed and, in ascertaining whether a particular homeowner’s actions amount to direction or control of a project, the relevant inquiry is the degree to which the homeowner supervised the method and manner of the actual work being performed by the [injured] party” … . That is, “the owner must significantly participate in the project before he or she will be deemed to have crossed the line from being a legitimately concerned homeowner to a de facto supervisor” who is not entitled to the exemption … . * * *

…[U]nder established case law, “neither providing site plans, obtaining a building permit, hiring contractors, purchasing materials, offering suggestions/input, inspecting the site, retaining general supervisory authority, performing certain work, nor physical presence at the site, operates to deprive a homeowner of the statutory exemption — so long as the homeowner did not exercise direction or control over the injury-producing work” … . …

We reach a similar conclusion with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim, which codifies the common-law duty of owners and general contractors “to maintain a safe construction site” … . As a precondition to the imposition of liability upon defendant as a homeowner, “it must be shown that [defendant] exercised supervisory control over [decedent’s] work and had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe manner in which the work was being performed” … . “When an alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from [a] contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Even “[t]he retention of general supervisory control, presence at a work site, or authority to enforce safety standards is insufficient to establish the control necessary to impose liability” … . Peck v Szwarcberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 08290, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ , , ,

Court Review of Elimination of Pension Benefits Proper Even though the Administrative Hearing Had Not Yet Been Held—No Need to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Where the Petition Does Not Raise an Issue of Fact that Should Initially Be Determined in the Administrative Hearing

The Third Department determined petitioner, a physician who served four school districts, could seek court review of the comptroller’s removal of his service credits (on the ground petitioner was an independent contractor, not an employee) and the consequent elimination of pension benefits, before an administrative hearing had been held:

“It is well settled that the Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits” … . Judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the Comptroller’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, in which case the determination must be upheld … .

Moreover, as a general rule, “one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law” … . However, there are exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, including where “resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury” or where “an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power” … . * * *

…[W]e find that the allegations in the petition do not raise an issue of fact that “‘should initially be addressed to the administrative agency having responsibility so that the necessary factual record can be established'” … . Under these circumstances, we conclude that petitioner has a cognizable constitutional claim regarding the prehearing removal of his service credits and cancellation of his retirement application that is ripe for our review and survives respondents’ motion to dismiss … . Matter of Kravitz v DiNapoli, 2014 NY Slip Op 08284, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Abutting Property Owner’s Liability for Accumulated Snow and Ice on a Sidewalk (In the Absence of a Statute or Ordinance) Explained

The Second Department explained the liability of an abutting property owner for accumulated ice and snow on a sidewalk.  The slip and fall in this case occurred before NYC Administrative Code 7-210 imposed liability on abutting property owners:

“In the absence of a statute or ordinance, an owner or lessee of property abutting a public sidewalk may be held liable where it undertook snow and ice removal efforts which made the naturally-occurring conditions more hazardous'” … . Here, [defendant]  made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf performed snow removal at the premises, and that he was not liable for any actions his tenants may have taken with respect to the sidewalk … . Harris v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08319, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

/

Photo Array Unduly Suggestive—Proof Burdens Explained

The Third Department determined a photo array was unduly suggestive because the nature of defendant’s picture was significantly different from the other photos:

Initially, a pretrial identification that is unduly suggestive violates due process and is therefore inadmissible against the defendant … . In this regard, a photo array is unduly suggestive if it “depicts a unique characteristic which draws the viewer’s attention so as to indicate that the police have selected a particular individual” … . “While the People have the initial burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in a pretrial identification procedure, it is the defendant who bears the ultimate burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive” … . Where suggestiveness is shown, it is the People’s burden to demonstrate the existence of an independent source by clear and convincing evidence … .

Finding that the People met their initial burden to establish that the police conduct was reasonable and their procedure was not unduly suggestive, we turn to defendant’s ultimate burden. … The array depicts six individuals of equivalent age and ethnicity who are reasonably similar in appearance. However, we nonetheless find the array to be unduly suggestive to the extent that defendant’s photo draws the viewer’s immediate attention. Specifically, while the other five photos depict individuals from the shoulders up with the upper portion of their photos consisting of nothing more than a blank, gray background, defendant is shown from the chest up with the top of his head reaching to the very top of the photo. Thus, defendant’s face occupies the space that, in all of the other photos, is bare. In our view, this difference cannot be deemed minor and impermissibly “create[d] a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification” … . Thus, County Court improperly held that the photo array was not unduly suggestive. People v Smith, 2014 NY Slip Op 08268, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ ,

Incidents of Ownership Awarded Hospital-Services-Tenant in Lease Entitled Tenant to Exemption from Real Property Tax

The Third Department determined that the tenant of a building used for hospital services was entitled to an exemption from real property tax because the tenant assumed many incidents of ownership.  The town argued that the tenant was not entitled to any exemption because it was not the true owner of the building:

As relevant here, RPTL 420-a mandates that “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for . . . hospital . . . purposes, and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of such purposes . . . shall be exempt from taxation” (RPTL 420-a [1] [a] [emphasis added]). Land and buildings are separately defined as taxable forms of real property (see RPTL 102 [12] [a], [b]), and a landlord and tenant may agree to their separate ownership … . The mere labeling of a tenant as “owner,” however, is not conclusive for real property taxation purposes … . Rather, the question of ownership turns on whether the lease agreement confers incidents of ownership upon the tenant or whether the landlord retains such dominion and control over the property that it must be deemed the beneficial owner for tax purposes … .

Here, the lease expressly vests title to all improvements on the property in petitioner as owner and grants petitioner significant incidents of ownership. For example, petitioner is entitled to claim depreciation on the improvements and is insured to the full extent of its interest in the building. In the event of substantial destruction of the improvements, petitioner has the right to determine whether to rebuild and, in the event of condemnation proceedings, petitioner is to receive the value of its present interest in the improvements. Petitioner also has the sole right to contest any tax assessment of the property, obtain a mortgage on the improvements, which it has done, and remove the improvements at the end of the lease term. Title to the improvements and the right to remove them vest in the landlord only in the event that petitioner abandons them at the termination of the lease. Finally, it is undisputed that the landlord does not retain any control over petitioner’s operation of its improvements as a health care facility. Matter of United Health Servs Hosps Inc v Assessor of the Town of Vestal, 2014 NY Slip Op 08275, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ ,

Officer Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion Defendant Posed a Danger—Pat-Down Search Triggered by a Bulge In Defendant’s Waistband Was Not Justified Under the DeBour Test

The Second Department determined the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant posed a threat to his safety when he patted defendant down and retrieved a weapon from defendant’s waistband.  Defendant, who was first observed merely standing and smoking a cigarette, had walked away from the police, turned his back to them and made a motion as if shoving something into his front waistband.  The officer, seeing the bulge in defendant’s waistband, immediately patted the defendant down:

In People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210), the Court of Appeals established a “graduated four-level test for evaluating street encounters initiated by the police” … . The first level permits a police officer to request information from an individual, and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality … . The second level, known as the “common-law right of inquiry,” requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and permits a somewhat greater intrusion short of a forcible seizure … . The third level permits a seizure, meaning that a police officer may forcibly stop and detain an individual, based upon a reasonable suspicion that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, a crime … . Finally, the fourth level authorizes an arrest based on probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony or misdemeanor … .

Here, those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the gun and his statements should have been granted. Assuming that Officer Castillo was justified in conducting a common-law inquiry, he lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant posed a threat to his safety when he conducted a pat-down search of the bulge in his waistband … . The police were not responding to a report of a crime involving a weapon and, at most, suspected the defendant of being involved in the burglary of an abandoned house … . In addition, “[a]n unidentifiable bulge which is readily susceptible of an innocent as well as a guilty explanation’ is not sufficient to justify a pat-down search” … . The waistband bulge as described by Officer Castillo only permitted him to ask the defendant if he was carrying a weapon based on a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot … . Moreover, Officer Castillo did not testify that the defendant, upon turning to face the officers, reached for or had his hand on the bulge, or made any threatening or menacing gesture … . Under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Castillo was not justified in searching the defendant’s waistband bulge as a minimally intrusive self-protective measure. Accordingly, the hearing court should have granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the physical evidence and his subsequent statements to law enforcement officials. Since, in the absence of the suppressed evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt, the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Harris, 2014 NY Slip Op 08351, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ ,

Verdict May Not Be Set Aside Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.30 On a (Waivable) Ground Not Preserved by Objection at Trial

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have set aside the verdict pursuant to a CPL 330.30 motion on a ground which was not preserved by an objection.  Supreme Court set aside the assault second conviction on the ground that the indictment, which charged assault first, was improperly amended during trial to assault second.  Because the defendant did not object to the amendment, the issue could not be the basis for setting aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30:

In considering a motion to set aside or modify a verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(1), a trial court may only consider questions of law, not fact … . Moreover, a trial court may only consider claims of legal error under CPL 330.30(1) where those claims are properly preserved for appellate review … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the alleged amendment of the indictment was not a nonwaivable defect, and the defendant was required to make a timely objection at trial to preserve, for the Supreme Court’s consideration, a claim pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) that the indictment was impermissibly amended … . As the defendant failed to object at trial, he “waived” any challenge to the reduction of the count alleging assault in the first degree …, and the Supreme Court was without authority to set aside the verdict on that ground … . People v Davidson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08346, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

/

Failure to Provide Meaningful Employee Assistance in Preparing for the Hearing Was a Constitutional, Not Merely Regulatory, Violation Requiring Expungement—Criteria Discussed in Some Depth

The Third Department determined the failure to provide the inmate with meaningful assistance leading up to his hearing required the annulment of the determination.  The court further determination that the failure was of constitutional, not merely regulatory, dimensions requiring expungement.  The issues were discussed in unusual depth:

…[P]etitioner was not provided meaningful employee assistance and that he was prejudiced thereby. Departmental regulations require that an inmate who is confined pending a superintendent’s hearing is to be provided an assistant (see 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [d]; 254.4). The assistant’s role is to, among other things, “interview witnesses and to report the results of his [or her] efforts to the inmate” (7 NYCRR 251-4.2). The record reflects that petitioner’s girlfriend and the other individual involved provided signed written statements to correction officials and State Police investigators implicating petitioner. Although petitioner requested that his assistant interview the two women to ascertain whether their statements were truthful and voluntary and provided his assistant with a list of questions to ask them, the record reveals that no interview took place and the Hearing Officer made no attempt to remedy the deficiency when petitioner raised the issue at the disciplinary hearing. Thus, the determination must be annulled.

Petitioner further asserts that the determination should be expunged, while respondent argues that the matter should be remitted for a new hearing because this was a regulatory, not constitutional, violation. Notably, the “right to assistance is a right of constitutional dimension” … and the failure to provide assistance is a violation of 7 NYCRR 251-4.2. In this regard, our precedent is not entirely consistent, nor have we clearly articulated the appropriate factors relevant to whether expungement, rather than remittal, is warranted when a petitioner has been denied meaningful employee assistance … . We have, however, held that constitutional violations related to a Hearing Officer’s failure to investigate a witness’s refusal to testify or the outright denial of the right to call a witness results in expungement …, while regulatory violations of such right do not … .

In the case before us, petitioner’s employee assistant took no steps whatsoever to interview the requested witnesses and ask the questions posed by petitioner, and this failure clearly prejudiced petitioner by impeding his ability to assert a defense to the charges. In our view, where, as here, the denial of meaningful employee assistance is absolute and without reasonable explanation, and the Hearing Officer does not attempt to remedy the deficiencies, such denial is comparable to those instances in which we have found a constitutional violation relative to the outright denial of a witness or the failure to ascertain the basis of a witness’s refusal to testify. Thus, under these circumstances, we find the denial of meaningful employee assistance to be a constitutional violation requiring expungement of all references to the matter from petitioner’s record. Matter of Rivera v Prack, 2014 NY Slip Op 08297, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Presentation of Defense Expert Re: the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

In finding that the defendant’s request to present expert evidence on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony was properly denied, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

Where a case “turns on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and there is little or no corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to exclude expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identifications if that testimony is (1) relevant to the witness’s identification of defendant, (2) based on principles that are generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, (3) proffered by a qualified expert and (4) on a topic beyond the ken of the average juror” … . Here, however, there was sufficient corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crimes to obviate the need for expert testimony * * *.  People v Granger, 2014 NY Slip Op 08349, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

/ , ,

Mistrial Declaration Over Defendant’s Objection Was “Manifestly Necessary”—Double Jeopardy Prohibition Not Triggered

The Second Department determined the trial judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial when defense counsel could not proceed because of a conflict and new counsel needed a two-month adjournment.  Because the mistrial, granted over defendant’s objection, was “manifestly necessary” the double jeopardy prohibition of a second trial was not triggered:

The double jeopardy clauses of the New York State and United States Constitutions protect an accused from multiple prosecutions for the same offense . “In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches, and the defendant has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal'” … .

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . “Manifest necessity” means a ” high degree of necessity'” based on reasons that are ” actual and substantial'” … . Moreover, before declaring a mistrial, a court must explore all appropriate alternatives and must provide a sufficient basis in the record for resorting to this “drastic measure” …  . Matter of Roey v Lopresto, 2014 NY Slip Op 08340, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

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