You are here: / Dismissal of Deported Defendant’s Appeal (Without Prejudice) Appropriate...

Search Results

/ , ,

Dismissal of Deported Defendant’s Appeal (Without Prejudice) Appropriate Where Defendant’s Continued Participation in the Proceedings Would Be Required Should the Appeal Be Successful

The Second Department determined defendant’s appeal of his motion to vacate his conviction should be dismissed without prejudice because he had been deported and his continued participation in the proceedings would be required if the appeal were successful, distinguishing People v Ventura, 17 NY3d 675, where dismissal was not appropriate because the defendant’s participation in the case was no longer required. People v Harrison, 2014 NY Slip Op 02076, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

/ , ,

Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)

The Second Department determined the provisions of a lease raised a question of fact about whether an out-of-possession landlord had a duty to keep the premises safe:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work” … .  * * * …[T]o the extent that the plaintiff’s claims were based on a dangerous condition on the premises, specifically the structural design, construction, and condition of a portion of the floor, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “An out-of-possession landlord generally will not be responsible for injuries occurring on its premises unless the landlord has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, the lease submitted by the defendants in support of their motion provided, among other things, that the defendants were required to “repair the damaged structural parts of the Premises,” that they were “not required to repair or replace any equipment, fixtures, furnishings or decorations unless originally installed by Landlord,” and that they retained the “right to enter into and upon said premises, or any part thereof . . . for the purpose of . . . making such repairs or alterations therein as may be necessary for the safety and preservation thereof.” Based on these provisions, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not have a duty imposed by contract to remedy the specific dangerous or defective condition alleged here. Thus, to prevail on their motion, the defendants were required to establish that they neither created the alleged dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the dangerous or defective condition alleged by the plaintiff to have contributed to his fall.  Quituizaca v Tucchiarone, 2014 NY Slip Op 02024, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

/

Basketball Player Assumed Risk of Running Into Glass Doors Behind Baseline

The Second Department determined a basketball player assumed the risk of the injuries suffered when his arm went through a glass door located behind the baseline.  The glass door constituted an open and obvious condition:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk provides that “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . This encompasses risks associated with the construction of the playing field, and any open and obvious conditions on it … . If the risks are known by or perfectly obvious to the participant, he or she has consented to them and the property owner has discharged its duty of care by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be.

Here, based in part on the proximity of the court to the entrance doors, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff had assumed the obvious and inherent risk of coming into contact with the pane of glass in the entrance door by electing to play basketball on that court… .  Perez v New York City Dept of Educ, 2014 NY Slip Op 02022, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

/

Passengers in Car Struck from Behind Entitled to Summary Judgment Despite Issue of Comparative Fault on the Part of the Driver of the Car in which They Were Passengers

The Second Department determined plaintiffs, who were passengers in a car struck from behind by the defendant (Farrell), were entitled to summary judgment in spite of the possible comparative negligence of the driver of the car in which they were passengers (Moncion):

Both plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the vehicle in which they were passengers was struck in the rear by Farrell’s vehicle … . “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” … . In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showings, Farrell failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision. Although Farrell submitted evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Moncion was comparatively at fault in causing the accident … , that evidence was insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment since Farrell failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether either one of the plaintiffs was at fault in the happening of the accident. Upon establishing his or her freedom from fault, the right of an innocent passenger to an award of summary judgment on the issue of liability against one driver is not barred or restricted by potential issues of comparative fault as between that driver and the driver of another vehicle involved in the accident … . Rodriguez v Farrell, 2014 NY Slip Op 02027, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

/

Construction Manager Not Liable Under Labor Law 241(6), Labor Law 200, or Under Common Law Negligence/No Control Over Work or Responsibility for the Premises

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined a construction manager was not liable as an agent of the owner under Labor Law 241(6) because the manager did not control the activity which resulted in the injury.  In addition the court determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should hav been dismissed:

A construction manager may be liable as an agent of the owner if “the manager had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “ ‘Defendant established as a matter of law that it was not an agent of the owner because the owner had not delegated to it the authority to supervise and control plaintiff’s work’ ” … . Pursuant to the express terms of the contract between defendant and the District, defendant “had no control over or responsibility for the safety of the workers at the construction site” … . The deposition testimony and affidavits submitted by defendant established that defendant acted in accordance with its authority under the contract, i.e., coordinating the schedules of the contractors and ensuring that their work complied with the requirements of the construction documents, and did nothing more. * * *

“Where the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the 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” … . On the other hand, where the “ ‘plaintiff’s injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed[ ] but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, [an owner or] general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition’  … . Regardless of which theory applies here, defendant was not an agent of the owner and “was not responsible either for the performance of [plaintiff’s] work or the premises on which that work was undertaken” … . Hargrave…v LeChase Construction Services LLC, 1373, 4th Dept. 3-21-14

 

/ , ,

Requirements for a Negligence Action Against a Municipality (Based Upon Personal Injuries Allegedly Caused by the Actions of Police Officers) Explained

The Fourth Department, in affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant municipality in a suit based upon injuries alleged to have been caused by police officers, the court explained the law relevant to negligence suits against municipalities:

With respect to the negligence cause of action, it is well settled that, in an action against a municipality, it is “the fundamental obligation of a plaintiff pursuing a negligence cause of action to prove that the putative defendant owed a duty of care. Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to [perform certain governmental functions], this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created. This is an offshoot of the general proposition that[,] ‘[t]o sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally’ . . . The second principle relevant here relates not to an element of plaintiff[’s] negligence claim but to a defense that [is] potentially available to [defendant]—the governmental function immunity defense . . . [T]he common-law doctrine of governmental immunity continues to shield public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions . . . [pursuant to which] ‘[a] public employee’s discretionary acts—meaning conduct involving the exercise of reasoned judgment—may not result in the municipality’s liability even when the conduct is negligent’ ” … .

With respect to the issue whether a special duty exists, it is well settled “that an agency of government is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public . . . Such a duty, . . . [i.e.,] a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff[,] is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . “A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … . According to plaintiff, a special relationship was formed in this case by the second method, i.e., the voluntary assumption of a duty of care by the municipal agency. That method requires plaintiff to establish “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking … .

We conclude that defendants met their burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that there was no voluntary assumption of a duty of care, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the police officers who came to the house assumed, through promise or action, any duty to act on his behalf. Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with respect to that requirement, we conclude that he also failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the fourth requirement, i.e., whether he justifiably relied on any such assumption of duty by the police officers … . Consequently, we conclude that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the negligence cause of action.

We further conclude, in any event, that the defense of governmental function immunity constitutes a separate and independent ground for dismissal of the negligence cause of action. That defense “shield[s] public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions” … . Here, defendants established that they were providing police protection and engaging in the investigation of possible criminal behavior. It is well settled that “[p]olice and fire protection are examples of long-recognized, quintessential governmental functions” … . Furthermore, “defendants established that the conduct of the police officers throughout the course of their interaction with [plaintiff] was undertaken in the exercise of reasoned professional judgment of the officers, and was not inconsistent with accepted police practice. Accordingly, such conduct cannot serve as a basis for municipal liability” … . Bower v City of Lockport…, 159, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

/ ,

Knowledge of the Health Issue Underlying Plaintiff’s Claim, and Knowledge of Another Similar Claim, Was Not Enough to Provide Defendant with Notice of Plaintiff’s Claim/Request to File Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Granted

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s application to file a late notice of claim.  Plaintiff, a wrestler, had contracted herpes from another high school wrestler.  The school had knowledge of the issue (a Health Advisory) and of another wrestler’s claim against the school based upon the same facts.  The Fourth Department determined that knowledge of the issue and the  other wrestler’s claim was not sufficient to put the school on notice about the plaintiff’s claim:

Where a claimant does not offer a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, a court may grant leave to serve a late notice of claim only if the respondent has actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim, there is no compelling showing of prejudice to the respondent …, and the claim does not “patently lack merit” … . Here, respondents asserted that, until claimant made the instant application, they had no knowledge that he had contracted herpes or otherwise had been injured at the tournament. Although claimant offered no evidence to the contrary, he essentially contended that respondents should have known of his injury because another wrestler had filed a timely notice of claim regarding an identical injury and because respondents had received Health Advisory #279a.

As we have repeatedly stated, actual knowledge of the essential facts of a claim requires “[k]nowledge of the injuries or damages claimed by a [claimant], rather than mere notice of the underlying occurrence” … . Here, claimant’s proof in support of his application establishes, at most, that respondents had constructive knowledge of his claim. In other words, there is nothing in the notice of claim filed by the other wrestler who was infected at the tournament or in Health Advisory #279a that gave respondents actual knowledge that claimant was similarly injured.Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that respondents suffered no prejudice from the delay and that the proposed claim against them does not patently lack merit, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Matter of Candino v Starpoint Central School District, 83, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

/ , , ,

Finding by Workers’ Compensation Law Judge Precluded Suit Under Labor Law and Common Law Negligence

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined the finding that no accident occurred by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge precluded plaintiff from suing under the Labor Law and common law negligence for an injury allegedly incurred while working on a house.  The court rejected the argument that the Workers’ Compensation proceeding dealt soley with the existence or non-existence of an employer-employee relationship:

The doctrine of collateral estoppel “precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same” … . Thus, “[t]he quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies are entitled to collateral estoppel effect where the issue a party seeks to preclude in a subsequent civil action is identical to a material issue that was necessarily decided by the administrative tribunal and where there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate before that tribunal” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination, whereas the party attempting to defeat its application has the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action” … .Here, defendant met his burden on his motion by establishing the “identicality and decisiveness of the issue” decided in the workers’ compensation proceeding… . Ridge v Gold, et al, 1300, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

/ , ,

Untimely Demand for Reinstatement Warranted Dismissal of Action to Compel Reinstatement

The Fourth Department determined petitioner’s action to compel reinstatement in his job as a policeman was untimely.  Petitioner should have made a demand for reinstatement within four months of learning he was not being held responsible criminally or civilly for the acts of misconduct alleged against him:

“Where, as here, a public employee is discharged without a hearing, the four-month limitations period set forth in CPLR 217 begins to run when the employee’s demand for reinstatement is refused” … . “[T]he demand must be made within a reasonable time after the right to make the demand occurs or . . . within a reasonable time after [petitioner] becomes aware of the facts which give rise to his [or her] right of relief” … , and we note that the four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been “treat[ed] . . . as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand” … . Here, we conclude that petitioner’s right to demand reinstatement to his position arose, at the latest, on or about December 6, 2011, when he received a letter from the District Attorney stating that he bore no civil or criminal responsibility for the acts of misconduct alleged against him, and that the matter would not be presented to the grand jury … . Nevertheless, petitioner did not demand reinstatement to his position until approximately nine months later, on August 31, 2012, well over the four-month guideline applied in Devens … . Thus, “it was [well] within the court’s discretion to determine that petitioner unreasonably delayed in making the demand” … . Matter of Norton v City of Hornell…, 256, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

/ ,

Probable Cause to Search Vehicle for a Weapon After Defendant’s Arrest Provided by Identified Citizen Informant

The Fourth Department determined a weapon was properly seized from a vehicle after defendant’s valid arrest based on information from an identified citizen informant:

It is well settled that, “ ‘where police have validly arrested an occupant of an automobile, and they have reason to believe that [it] may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted, they may contemporaneously search the passenger compartment, including any containers found therein’ ” … .Here, as noted, there is no dispute that defendant was lawfully stopped and arrested. Rather, the issue before us is whether the police lawfully searched the vehicle defendant was driving. Even assuming, without deciding, that the police did not conduct a lawful inventory search, we conclude that a search was authorized because the police had probable cause to believe that a gun was inside the vehicle. Probable cause arose from the information provided to the police by the identified citizen informant, who stated that she observed one of the occupants of defendant’s vehicle in possession of what appeared to be a handgun used in the abduction of her boyfriend. “An identified citizen informant is presumed to be personally reliable” …  and, here, the informant had a sufficient basis of knowledge inasmuch as she personally observed the weapon in question… . People v Holmes, 95, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

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