You are here: / Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim

Search Results

/

Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim

he First Department determined a worker was entitled to partial summary judgment on a 240(1) claim based on a falling pipe striking him in the head.  The fact that the worker was not wearing a hard hat did not raise a triable issue of fact on the 240(1) claim:

The evidence demonstrates that plaintiff, a welder who was working at a power plant that was being constructed, was struck on the head by a pipe that fell from a height of approximately 85 to 120 feet as a result of a gap in a toeboard installed along a grated walkway near the top of a generator in the power plant … . It is undisputed that there was no netting to prevent objects from falling on workers and contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff is not required to show exactly how the pipe fell, since, under any of the proffered theories, the lack of protective devices was the proximate cause of his injuries …. Nor is plaintiff required to show that the pipe was being hoisted or secured when it fell, since that is not a precondition to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact since they failed to show that adequate protective devices required by Labor Law § 240(1) were employed at the site. That plaintiff was wearing a welding hood but not a hard hat does not raise an issue of fact since “[a] hard hat is not the type of safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to be constructed, placed and operated, so as to give proper protection from extraordinary elevation-related risks to a construction worker” … . Mercado v Caithness Long Is LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02005, 9634, 102473/09, 590277/11, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

/ ,

Oral Partnership Agreement Dissolvable at Will Because of Lack of Specificity

In finding that an oral partnership agreement was dissolvable at will because no “definite term” or “particular undertaking” was included, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, wrote:

…[W]e believe that [the] complaint lacks a fixed, express period of time during which the enterprise was expected to operate. Instead, the complaint alleges a flexible temporal framework: the parties were to solicit investments for an indefinite length of time; conduct an open-ended (possibly two-year) search for an unidentified business in an unknown business sector or industry; secure additional capital investments over the course of an unspecified period of time; and then purchase and operate the enterprise for an indeterminate duration (perhaps four to seven years) until a liquidity event would hopefully occur. Since the complaint does not set forth a specific or even a reasonably certain termination date, it does not satisfy the “definite term” element of [Partnership Law] section 62 (1) (b). * * *

Furthermore, when the entire scheme is considered, the alleged sequence of anticipated partnership events detailed in the complaint are too amorphous to meet the statutory “particular undertaking” standard for precluding unilateral dissolution of a partnership. The stages of the plan … were to: (1) raise money; (2) identify a business to buy; (3) raise more money to purchase the business; (4) “operate the business to increase its value”; (5) “achieve the liquidity event”; (6) “sell the business”; and (7) secure profit from the sale. But these objectives are fraught with uncertainty and are less definitive than the declarations referring to specific industries that have been found to be inadequate by other courts *  *  *.  In the absence of a definite term of duration or a particular undertaking to be achieved, the partnership agreement at issue, however well-intended, was dissolvable at will by either partner under Partnership Law § 62 (1) (b). Gelman v Buehler, 37, Ct.App. 3-26-13

 

 

/ ,

Experts’ Failure to Address Proximate Cause Precluded Summary Judgment

The defendants in a medical malpractice action were granted summary judgment finding that any departures from the standard of care were not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.  The Court of Appeals reversed because the defendants’ experts did not address proximate cause in their affidavits in support of the summary judgment motion.  The defendants therefore did not meet their burden on the issue of proximate cause. Orsi, et al, v Haralabatos, et al, 50, CtApp 3-26-13

 

/ , ,

There Is No Transfer of Property Until the Deed Is Accepted by the Buyer

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined that a grant of property takes place only when the deed is (1) delivered and (2) accepted.  There was a foreclosure sale.  In order to obtain a judgment for the deficiency between the amount of the foreclosed loan and the actual foreclosure sale price, a motion must be made within 90 days “after the date of the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the proper deed of conveyance to the purchaser…”.  In this case the buyer at the foreclosure sale (M & T) did not at first accept the deed because M & T planned to assign its bid prior to the closing.  The deed was returned to the referee who agreed to hold it.  About three months later, M & T asked the referee to execute and resend the deed. About two weeks after that M & T filed a motion for a deficiency judgment. Defendants opposed the motion arguing it was made more than 90 days after the consummation of the sale. The appellate division agreed with the defendants.  The Court of Appeals reversed and wrote:

As a general rule, a deed is presumed to have been “delivered and accepted at its date”; however, this presumption “must yield to opposing evidence” … . Here, M&T’s attorney twice declined to accept or retain physical possession of the referee’s deed dated May 11, 2010. As a result, the referee took back the deed and other closing documents and ultimately executed a deed on August 9, 2010, when M&T’s attorney accepted it … . This constitutes “opposing evidence” sufficient to rebut any presumption of delivery in May 2010 … . M&T’s motion was therefore timely because brought within 90 days “after the date of the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the proper deed of conveyance to the purchaser” (RPAPL 1371 [2]) — i.e., August 9, 2010.  M & T Real Estate Trust v Doyle, 55, CtApp 3-26-13

 

/ , ,

Lawsuit Prohibited by Unambiguous Release

In reversing the trial court, the Second Department determined a medical malpractice complaint should have been dismissed based on the unambiguous language of a release signed by the plaintiff:

The action should have been dismissed as against defendants-appellants based on the unambiguous language in the release, which clearly intended to put an end to the action …. Given the unambiguous terms of the release, the motion court should not have considered extrinsic evidence… . Bernard v Sayegh, 2013 NY Slip Op 02027, 8619, 111756/06, 1st Dept. 3-26-13

 

/ ,

Representation of Co-defendants by Attorneys In Same Firm Constituted Ineffective Assistance

Defendant brought a motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Article 440 to vacate his conviction on the ground that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.  Defendant’s attorney was “of counsel” to the law firm of the attorney who represented a co-defendant.  The co-defendant agreed to testify against the defendant in return for a lesser sentence.  Ultimately the defendant pled guilty.  In reversing the judgment of conviction, the Third Department, in a decision by Justice Stein, wrote:

When a single attorney or multiple attorneys associated with the same firm simultaneously represent clients in a criminal matter, “if the clients’ interests actually conflict, and if the defendant has not waived the conflict, the defendant is deprived of the effective assistance of counsel”… People v Lynch, 104852, 104945, 3rd Dept 3-26-13

 

/ ,

Search of Camera in Possession of the Police for Illegal Images Was Valid Even though Underlying Warrant Was Issued In a Case Closed Before the Search

In a search, the defendant’s computer and camera were seized.  Based on a picture found on the computer, the defendant pled guilty to possessing a sexual performance of a child.  After his sentence was served and after the time to appeal had elapsed defendant’s attorney contacted the prosecutor and asked for defendant’s seized camera to be returned. At that time the camera was analyzed for the first time and images found on the camera were the basis for the predatory sexual assault conviction that was before the Court of Appeals. The defendant moved to suppress the images found on the camera arguing that at the time the images were found the authority provided by the warrant under which the camera was seized had lapsed, making the search of the camera illegal.  In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the contents of the seized camera, and, therefore, the search of the camera did not violate the Fourth Amendment.  Judge Lippman noted that “it would not be compatible with due process for the state to retain property under color of a search warrant beyond the exhaustion of any law enforcement purpose adequate to justify the withholding…”.  Here, the Court determined, a legitimate law enforcement purpose existed at the time the analysis of the camera was done.  The camera could not be returned until it was determined no illegal images were contained in it. People v DeProspero, 44, CtApp 3-26-13

SEARCH AND SEIZURE, SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

/ ,

In a Sexual Abuse Case, Prosecutor’s Hypothetical Questions to Expert Which Mirrored Complainant’s Testimony Constituted Improper Bolstering

In another “sexual abuse” opinion by Judge Pigott, the Court of Appeals, as it did in People v Diaz (decided the same day), determined the expert’s testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, which included explanations about how an abuser gains the trust of the victim and encourages secrecy, etc., was admissible.  But here the prosecutor followed up the expert’s general testimony with hypothetical questions which mirrored the victims’ testimony.  The Court of Appeals determined the hypothetical questions constituted improper bolstering (but held the testimony to be harmless error under the facts):

We agree with defendant …that the expert’s testimony exceeded permissible bounds when the prosecutor tailored the hypothetical questions to include facts concerning the abuse that occurred in this particular case. Such testimony went beyond explaining victim behavior that might be beyond the ken of a jury, and had the prejudicial effect of implying that the expert found the testimony of this particular complainant to be credible – even though the witness began his testimony claiming no knowledge of the case before the court.  People v Williams, 53, CtApp 3-26-13

 

/ ,

Failure to Request Jury Charge for Lesser Included Offense Constituted Ineffective Assistance

In finding that defense counsel’s failure to request that the jury be charged with a lesser included offense constituted ineffective assistance, the Court of Appeals wrote:

In his closing argument, [defense] counsel asked the jury to acquit defendant of attempted murder, but virtually invited a conviction for first degree assault. After saying: “on that particular charge [attempted murder], I’m going to ask that you actually check off the box that says ‘not guilty,'” he added, as to the assault charges: “Make your decision . . . . I’m sure, whatever it is, it will be the right decision.” *  *

Counsel’s belief that his client was without a defense to first degree assault was mistaken. The record affords a good-faith basis for an argument that the injuries the victim received did not result in serious and protracted, or serious and permanent, disfigurement … .  We conclude that counsel’s error in overlooking that issue rendered his assistance to defendant ineffective …. People v Nesbitt, 28, CtApp 3-26-13

 

 

 

/ , ,

City Deemed Immune from Suit—Governmental and Proprietary Functions Explained 

Plaintiff was injured when a Department of Transportation (DOT) worker, who was setting up cones on the roadway in preparation for road repair, allowed plaintiff to ride through the work area on her bicycle.  The plaintiff was injured when she rode over a pothole. The First Department determined the defendant City was immune from suit because the DOT worker was performing a discretionary/governmental, not a proprietary function, when he allowed the plaintiff to ride through.  The decision includes detailed discussion of discretionary/governmental versus proprietary functions.  Wittorf v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02014, 8358, 103233/06, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

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