You are here: / THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE...

Search Results

/

THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHEN PLAINTIFF OPENED THE EMERGENCY HATCH ON THE HOIST FOR A REPAIRMAN, THE HATCH DOOR SLAMMED BACK DOWN ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was attempting to aid in the repair of a hoist when he opened the emergency hatch and the hatch door fell back down, striking plaintiff’s head. The court ruled that the hoist was a covered safety device and plaintiff was entitled to some form of protection that would prevent the hatch door from falling back down after it was opened: In the alternative, the court noted that the hatch was a falling object which should have been secured:

Plaintiff was injured when the hatch door slammed onto his head as he stood on a ladder with his head protruding above the hatch aperture. We note that, in isolation, a hatch door is not necessarily a safety device … . Here, however, the hatch door was an essential component of a safety device — the hoist — being employed by plaintiff in an elevation-related capacity. It was foreseeable that the hoist could get stuck; indeed, a purpose of the hatch door was to serve as an emergency egress in such instances. When he was injured, plaintiff was still engaged in an elevation-related activity and attempting to safely remove himself from a height. Under these circumstances, the safety device — the hoist — was inadequate for its purpose of keeping plaintiff safe while engaged in an elevation-related activity. Plaintiff is thus entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his claim under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Ladd v Thor 680 Madison Ave LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07031, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Here the hoist plaintiff was operating was deemed a safety device covered by Labor Law 240(1). The door on the hoist’s emergency hatch slammed back down on plaintiffs’ head after he opened it to allow access to the hoist by a repairman. Plaintiff was entitled to some sort of protection which would prevent the open hatch door from falling back down. As an alternative, the hatch door was a falling object which should have been secured.

 

/ ,

THE PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED DISFIGUREMENT” IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault first conviction and reducing it to attempted assault first, determined the People did not prove the scar on the victim’s cheek met the definition of “serious and protracted disfigurement.” The People introduced two photos of the scar and the doctor who treated the injury testified. The victim did not testify:

Defendant’s convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to prove that the victim suffered serious and permanent disfigurement, which was the basis of both counts (see Penal Law §§ 120.10[1], [2]). The People relied solely on two photos of the victim depicting a scar on his cheek, and the scar was briefly described by the doctor who treated the victim on the day of the slashing. Despite the scar’s prominent location, neither the photos nor the doctor’s testimony warrant an inference that the scar rendered the victim’s appearance “distressing or objectionable” to a reasonable observer … . The victim did not testify, so the jury had no opportunity to observe the actual scar and evaluate whether it was seriously disfiguring, nor was any other evidence adduced regarding the scar’s effects on the victim’s appearance, health, and life … . People v McBride, 2022 NY Slip Op 07034, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Here defendant was charged with assault first for causing “serious and protracted disfigurement” to the victim. Although two photos of the scar were introduced in evidence and the treating doctor testified, the victim did not testify. It appears that the jury’s inability to see the victim at the time of trial rendered the proof legally insufficient.

 

/

THE FELONY WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A PREDICATE FELONY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the felony which was the basis of defendant’s second felony offender status did not meet the criteria for a predicate felony:

In order for a prior conviction to constitute a predicate felony, the “sequentiality requirement” must be satisfied, which means “that the ‘sentence upon such prior conviction must have been imposed before commission of the present felony'” … . Defendant was sentenced on the predicate felony forming the basis for her second felony status on the same day that she was sentenced on the instant offense. As such, that felony offense — referenced in the predicate felony information as an August 27, 2020 conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree — could not be used to meet the requirements for sentencing defendant as a second felony offender on the instant offense. People v Hayes, 2022 NY Slip Op 06965, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: In order to meet the criteria for a predicate felony re: second felony offender status, the sentence for the prior conviction must have been imposed before the instant felony was committed.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF-TENANT’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S STIPULATION WITH THE PRIOR TENANT IN 2000 ILLEGALLY DECONTROLLED THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s complaint should have been dismissed. “Plaintiff, the current tenant of the subject apartment, commenced this action seeking a declaration that her tenancy is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) and that the premises were illegally decontrolled in 2000 when defendant owner and nonparty Edward McKinney reached a ‘private agreement’ circumventing initial rent registration procedures for decontrolling the apartment.” The decision and the dissent are detailed and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

An agreement by a tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the rent control law is expressly prohibited and void (9 NYCRR 2200.15 …). However, when McKinney and defendant settled their dispute over McKinney’s status, McKinney was not a tenant … . He was not on the lease and had no evident rights, other than being an occupant of the apartment who claimed that he had succession rights when Brown died. … Defendant, on the other hand, denied that McKinney was anything other than a squatter/licensee or possible roommate of the deceased. By entering into the 2000 stipulation, both sides, represented by counsel, resolved their dispute as to whether McKinney had any statutory right to the apartment. By doing so, McKinney and defendant chose the certainty of settlement, rather than the uncertainty of a judicial declaration about McKinney’s status … .

From the dissent:

… I would find that plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that the stipulation that McKinney and defendant executed in 2000 (the 2000 stipulation) was void under applicable statutes, as interpreted by our Court and the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, I would vote to affirm the portion of the motion court’s decision that denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, third and fourth causes of action. Liggett v Lew Realty LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07000, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff-tenant alleged defendant-landlord illegally decontrolled the apartment in 2000 by entering an agreement (a stipulation) with the prior tenant. The majority held the complaint did not state a cause of action. The two dissenters disagreed.

 

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel did not waive his client’s right to have his attorney attend the lineup identification procedure by sending his paralegal. The paralegal was turned away:

Defendant was deprived of his right to have counsel present at a … postindictment lineup. It is undisputed that defendant had a right to counsel at this lineup, which was conducted at a time when he already had representation. Although defendant’s counsel was notified of the lineup and did not attend, a paralegal employed by counsel attempted to attend the lineup but was turned away by the police.

The attorney did not waive his client’s right to counsel at the lineup by failing to appear. The police should have briefly paused this nonexigent, postindictment lineup, conducted long after the crime … , in order to advise the attorney he needed to attend personally, or to have the paralegal so advise counsel. People v Bennett, 2022 NY Slip Op 07007, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point; Defense counsel sent his paralegal to attend his client’s lineup, but the police sent the paralegal away. The police should have informed counsel his presence was required before going ahead with the lineup. Counsel’s failure to attend did not waive his client’s right to have his attorney present.

 

/ ,

IN REVIEWING THE GRAND JURY MINUTES, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS; RATHER THOSE COUNTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing County Court and reinstating three counts of the indictment, determined that inclusory concurrent counts in an indictment should not be dismissed prior to trial:

… [T]he parties entered a stipulation in lieu of motions authorizing County Court to review the grand jury minutes to determine whether there was legally sufficient evidence, adequate instructions or any defects in the proceedings. The court thereafter dismissed those counts charging criminal sexual act in the first degree as inclusory concurrent counts of the predatory sexual assault counts pursuant to CPL 300.30 (4), occasioning this appeal by the People.

“In assessing whether dismissal of an indictment is warranted under CPL 210.20 (1) (b), a reviewing court must assess whether the People presented legally sufficient evidence to establish the offense or offenses charged” … .. Although asked to review the indictment to ensure that the evidence submitted to the grand jury was legally sufficient, the court dismissed the counts at issue as inclusory. Even if certain counts charged in the indictment are inclusory concurrent counts, that does not require dismissal of those counts prior to trial or, upon trial, bar the submission of both the greater and the lesser counts to the jury for consideration. Rather, “[w]hen inclusory counts are submitted for consideration, they must be submitted in the alternative since a conviction on the greater count is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count” … . People v Provost, 2022 NY Slip Op 06966, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Conclusory concurrent counts should be allowed to go to the jury in the alternative.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING REQUESTED A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY COUNTY COURT; THE ORDER WAS REVERSED AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s request for a downward departure in the SORA risk-assessment proceeding was not addressed by the court. The matter was sent back for the relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law:

County Court failed to address his request for a downward departure. We agree and, inasmuch as County Court did not set forth on the record any findings or conclusions on the request, we are unable to assess the court’s reasoning for the implicit denial thereof. “Consequently, we reverse and remit so that County Court may determine whether or not to order a departure from the presumptive risk level indicated by the offender’s guidelines factor score and to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required” … . People v Howland, 2022 NY Slip Op 06967, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: In a SORA risk-assessment proceeding, if the defendant requests a downward departure, the court must address the request and make the relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS FELONY CONVICTIONS DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO A MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SANDOVAL RULING TO ALLOW QUESTIONING ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CONVICTIONS; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court should not have modified its original Sandoval ruling. The initial Sandoval ruling allowed defendant to be questioned about the number of felony conviction on his record but not about any of the underlying facts. When defendant was on the stand the court allowed the prosecutor to ask about the underlying facts:

On direct examination, when asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime in New York, defendant answered, “[y]es.” When asked,”[d]o you know how many,” he testified, “[a]pproximately maybe two or three felonies. Maybe four or five misdemeanors.”

On cross-examination, when the prosecutor asked defendant if he had been convicted of three felonies, defendant replied, “I guess so.” In response to the prosecutor’s next question, defendant said he was not sure how many felony convictions he had. The court then modified its Sandoval ruling and permitted the People to exceed the scope of the initial Sandoval ruling by inquiring about the underlying facts of those felony convictions, which included drug and theft-related crimes.

Defendant’s trial testimony did not open the door to a prejudicial modification of the court’s Sandoval ruling. Defendant was entitled to rely on the trial court’s original Sandoval ruling as a matter of “plain fairness” … .

None of defendant’s responses on direct or cross-examination were so incorrect or misleading as to permit the court’s modification … . People v Henderson, 2022 NY Slip Op 07009, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: The court’s initial Sandoval ruling allowed defendant to be about the number of felony convictions on his record. When the defendant was on the stand, the judge modified the Sandoval ruling to allow questioning about the underlying facts. There was nothing about the defendant’s testimony which justified the Sandoval modification and defendant’s conviction was reversed.

 

/

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL WHEN LEAVING A BATHROOM MET THE DEFINITION OF AN “ACCIDENT” IN THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW; SHE WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the comptroller’s ruling, determined the police officer’s slip and fall was an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law entitling her to accidental disability retirement benefits:

Petitioner’s slip and fall while exiting the bathroom was sudden and unexpected, and the precipitating event was not a risk of the work performed by her, i.e., was not the result of activity undertaken in the performance of her ordinary employment as a police officer … . Petitioner was not required to demonstrate that the slippery substance was not readily observable … . The Retirement System conceded at the hearing that the 2012 accident rendered petitioner permanently incapacitated and on appeal respondent — in conceding that petitioner was entitled to performance of duty disability retirement based upon the 2012 incident — necessarily conceded causation, i.e. that the 2012 fall caused her permanent incapacitation. Matter of Bucci v DiNapoli, 2022 NY Slip Op 06968, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Petitioner police officer slipped and fell when leaving a bathroom. That was an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law entitling her to accidental disability retirement benefits.

 

/ , ,

BOTH PARENTS OPPOSED VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON ONE OF THE CHILDREN; IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court’s ruling allowing visitation by the grandparents, which was opposed by both parents, was not demonstrated to be in the best interests of the children. The son is autistic and has frequent “meltdowns” which the grandparents allegedly didn’t handle appropriately. The matter was sent back for a new hearing in front of a different judge:

In granting visitation to the grandparents, Family Court essentially based its determination on its belief that the son would benefit from frequent contact with family members who love him, and that “equity demand[ed]” that the daughter have the same level of visitation. While contact with loving family members is certainly a laudable goal for these and any other children, the record does not support the court’s finding that the children’s best interests would be served by visitation with the grandparents. Indeed, to the contrary, the mother and the father, who were separated as of the time of the hearing but were united in their opposition to the grandparents’ visitation petition, offered testimony detailing the negative effects that visitation with the grandparents had on the son. Matter of Virginia HH. v Elijah II., 2022 NY Slip Op 06970, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Here both parents opposed visitation with the grandparents and there was evidence such visitation had negative effects on one of the children, who is autistic. It was not demonstrated visitation with the grandparents was in the children’s best interests. The case was remitted for a new hearing before a different judge.

 

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