You are here: / Voluntary Participation in Fight Precludes Suit Alleging Inadequate Building...

Search Results

/

Voluntary Participation in Fight Precludes Suit Alleging Inadequate Building Security

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s voluntary participation in a fight severed any causal connection between his injuries and the defendant building owner’s and defendant building manager’s alleged failure to keep the premises safe:

Courts in all four judicial departments have found that one who voluntarily participates in a physical fight cannot recover from a party generally charged with ensuring a safe environment. Thus, in Williams v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Mount Vernon (277 AD2d 373 [2d Dept 2000]), the duty of supervision normally imposed on a school was found to have been displaced by the plaintiff student’s voluntary participation in a fight. Similar results obtained in Borelli v Board of Educ. of Highland School Dist. (156 AD2d 903 [3d Dept 1989) and in Ruggerio v Board of Educ. of City of Jamestown (31 AD2d 884, 884 [4th Dept 1969] [holding that “(p)laintiff’s conduct, demonstrating a lack of reasonable regard for his own safety, was a direct cause of the incident resulting in his injury and, as such, defeats his right of recovery against the defendant Board of Education”], affd 26 NY2d 849 [1970]).  This Court in Vega v Ramirez (57 AD3d 299 [1st Dept 2008]) also held that a plaintiff’s willing participation in a fight negates any negligence committed by a defendant with a duty to provide security.  Carreras v Morrisania Towers Hous Co Ltd Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 04893, 1st Dept 6-27-13

THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

/

Parole Board Could Require No-Contact-with-Wife for One Year as a Condition

In upholding the Board of Parole’s determination that, as a condition of release on parole, petitioner, who had attacked his wife in the past, must refrain from any contact with his wife for one year and complete a domestic violence offenders program, the Third Department wrote:

…[T]the Board is vested with discretion to determine the conditions upon which an inmate is released, and its decision in that regard is not subject to judicial review if made in accordance with the law (see Executive Law §§ 259-c [2]; 259-i [5];…). Petitioners argue that the conditions at issue are unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, in that they lack a sufficient factual basis in the record and improperly impair their fundamental right to maintain a marital relationship. We disagree. Parole conditions that  are  “rationally  related  to  the inmate’s criminal history, past conduct and  future chances of recidivism” are not arbitrary and capricious ….   Moreover, petitioner’s fundamental rights to associate and marry may be restricted by  parole  conditions  that  are  “reasonably  related  to legitimate  penological  interests” … .  George v NYS Department of Corrections …, 516126, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

/

Board’s Determination Business Was Claimant’s “Employer” Reversed

In reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that “Quick Change” was claimant’s employer and therefore was liable for contributions to unemployment benefits, the Third Department noted:

Here, Quick Change did not screen claimant but, rather, retained his services based upon his reputation in the industry. Claimant was  free to accept or reject an  assignment  from  Quick Change,  was  not prohibited  from  working  for others,  did  not  sign a written contract and  received no  fringe benefits. Although Quick Change arranged for claimant to begin working at a specific time and place designated by the client, the work schedule thereafter  was  dictated  solely by  the  client, and  a  representative from  Quick Change  was  never present at the job site. Quick Change did not train claimant or instruct him in any aspect of how to perform his work, and claimant was not required to report to Quick Change in any manner. Claimant furnished his own supplies and received no reimbursement from Quick Change. Once the work was completed, claimant submitted invoices to Quick Change for payment. Quick Change set the rate of pay; however, it was based upon the established market  for such  services. Moreover, while the owner of Quick Change hypothesized that she would likely pay claimant in the event that the client did not pay, this was based  upon  a sense of personal obligation rather than a  contractual  commitment.  In the Matter of Richins…, 515330, 515370, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

/

Benefits Awarded for Psychic Injury (Stress) Affirmed

The Third Department affirmed an award of Workers’ Compensation benefits based on psychic injury (stress).  Due an audit of the travel reimbursement policies of the employer, the employee (claimant) was required to pay taxes on “income” of $100,000 (the reason for the employee’s psychic injury).  The Third Department explained the analytical factors as follows:

A  workers’ compensation claim for psychic injury stemming  from work-related  stress is not  compensable  if it was “a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good  faith by the employer”… .  Claimant, however, was not accused of wrongdoing by the employer.    Instead, her mental injuries stemmed from the serious financial liabilities she incurred as a result of a review of the employer’s reimbursement practices….[W]e  will not disturb the Board’s determination that the stress that claimant experienced was greater than that generally experienced by similarly situated workers in a normal work environment… .  Matter of Brittain v NYS Insurance Dept, 515279, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

/ ,

The Term “Casualty” In Lease Covered Flooding Due to Malfunctioning HVAC System

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was the owner and landlord of a building and defendant was a commercial tenant.  Section 7.04 of the lease stated: “each party releases the other with respect to any claim (including a claim for negligence) which it might otherwise have against the other party for loss, damage or destruction with respect to its property by fire or other casualty . . . occurring during the terms of this Lease” … .  A gauge in the HVAC system burst, causing flooding. Plaintiff sued defendant for the cost of repair, alleging defendant failed to maintain the HVAC system.  The issue was whether the word “casualty” in the lease meant “act of god” only, or included damage from human error.  The First Department (reversing Supreme Court) determined human error was included in the meaning of “casualty:”

[W]here a clause is unambiguous, contract language and terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning…. Here, the lease provides that the parties agreed on mutual releases in case of damage “by fire or other casualty.” In light of this phrasing, in which “other casualty” is placed in the same category as “fire,” it cannot be said that the word “casualty” excludes events resulting from human error. On the contrary, a fire might have myriad causes, many of which do result from human error. However, the parties did not restrict the types of fires that would fall under the release — for example, by stating that only fires caused by severe weather or other natural causes would trigger a release from liability. Accordingly, the phrase “fire or other casualty,” as construed by an ordinary business person, would describe an event, rather than the cause of that event. 45 Broadway Owner LLC v NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund, 2013 NY Slip Op 04895, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

/

Late Amendment of Complaint (After Note of Issue Filed) Should Have Been Granted

The First Department reversed the IAS court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to serve a third amended complaint.  The court noted that plaintiff’s failure to vacate his note of issue did not require the denial of the motion. In explaining that mere lateness is not a barrier to amendment, the court wrote:

…”[M]ere lateness is not a barrier to . . . amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side . ….. “The kind of prejudice required to defeat an amendment . . . must . . . be a showing of prejudice traceable not simply to the new matter sought to be added, but also to the fact that it is only now being added. There must be some special right lost in the interim, some change of position or some significant trouble or expense that could have been avoided had the original pleading contained what the amended one wants to add”…. Defendants failed to show such prejudice. Jacobson v Croman, 2013 NY Slip Op 04909, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

/

“Grouping of Contacts” Analysis to Determine Which State’s Law Applies

The First Department noted Supreme Court correctly applied the “grouping of contacts” analysis in determining whether New York or Maryland law applied in an action to determine which insurance company was required to defend and indemnify.  The First Department further noted that late notice to the carrier because of the need to investigate did not warrant the carrier’s disclaimer of coverage.  Addressing the “grouping of contacts,” the court explained:

The motion court correctly determined that, under the standard “grouping of contacts” analysis, New York law, rather than Maryland law, applies in this case …. Indeed, the subcontract between Hayward Baker and Schiavone involved construction services at a site located in New York, Schiavone formed a joint venture in New York to perform those services, the accident and resulting litigation occurred in New York, Zurich asserts that it is a New York corporation with a home office in New York, Illinois National is licensed to do business in New York, and the demand letters and responses were sent from the parties’ New York offices … .  Illinois Natl Ins Co v Zurich Am Ins Co, 2013 NY slip Op 04881, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

/

Statute of Limitations Defense in Article 78 Proceeding Waived Because Not Raised in Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss

In reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of an Article 78 proceeding as untimely, the Third Department determined the statute of limitations defense was waived because it was not raised in the answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss:

Petitioner contends that Supreme Court erred in granting respondent’s oral motion to dismiss the petition based upon statute of limitations grounds inasmuch as respondent  failed to timely raise this defense/objection in either its verified answer or a pre-answer motion to dismiss. We agree. It is well established that an aggrieved party must raise a statute of limitations defense/objection in either the answer or a pre-answer motion  to  dismiss  (see  CPLR  3211  [e]; 7804  [f];…). A pre-answer motion  to dismiss based  upon  a statute of limitations defense/objection necessarily “must  be  made  prior to the time in which to serve an  answer, and the failure to do  so will result in a waiver of the defense unless [thereafter] raised in the responsive pleading”… .  Matter of Kowalczyk v Village of Monticello, 515968, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

/

Bed and Breakfast Not Entitled to Homeowner’s Exemption

The Third Department determined the owner of a bed and breakfast was not entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from the Labor Law:

…[A]lthough “[b]oth 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 has carved  out  an  exemption for the owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work”….    That exemption, however, “is not available to an owner who uses or intends  to use  [the] dwelling  only  for commercial  purposes”… .  Bagley v Moffett, 515914, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

/ , ,

Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where Defendant Not Informed of Possibility of Deportation Can Not Be Applied Retroactively

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversed the sentencing court’s vacation of defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea).  The sentencing court had reversed the conviction on the ground defendant had not been informed of the risk of deportation based on the plea.  The sentencing court’s ruling was based upon the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), which the sentencing court determined should be applied retroactively.  The First Department explained that Padilla should not be applied retroactively, overruling First Department and 3rd Department precedent:

Padilla has been accorded retroactive application by this Court …and the 3rd Department…. However, since Padilla “marks a break from both Federal and State law precedents . . . and fundamentally alters the Federal constitutional landscape, the principles of retroactivity developed by the Supreme Court in construing Federal constitutional law govern the disposition of this case” (People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]).

The holding that Padilla announced new law, by which this Court is bound, dictates the conclusion that it has no retroactive application. As Eastman explains:  “Pursuant to Teague, new rules of constitutional criminal procedure are applied retrospectively in one of two situations: (1) where the new rule places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law making authority to proscribe’ or (2) where the new rule alters a bedrock procedural element of criminal procedure which implicates the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the trial” (Eastman, 85 NY2d at 275, quoting Teague, 489 US at 311-312).

The rule announced in Padilla does neither, merely prescribing a duty imposed on counsel, and does not warrant retroactive application. Thus, defendant may not avail himself of the ruling… People v Verdejo, 2013 NY Slip Op 04913, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

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