You are here: / THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6)...

Search Results

/

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code provision which was the basis of the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action did not apply to plaintiff’s demolition-work-injury and defendant general contractor (Lad) did not exercise supervisory control over defendant’s work and was not therefore liable under Labor Law 200:

… [T]he cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) is predicated on Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c), which mandates continuing inspections during hand demolition operations to detect hazards “resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors or walls or from loosened material.” … [Defendant] established …the inapplicability of this provision by demonstrating that the hazard arose from the plaintiff’s actual performance of the demolition work itself, and not structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition … . …

“Although property owners [and general contractors] often have a general authority to oversee the progress of the work, mere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” or for common-law negligence … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for the purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … .

Here, Lad established, prima facie, that it did not possess the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work … . Flores v Crescent Beach Club, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04901, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here the cited Industrial Code provision did not apply to plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) demolition-work-injury cause of action and Labor Law 200 did not apply to defendant general contractor which did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work.

 

/ ,

TO AVOID DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) THE PLAINTIFF NEED ONLY TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR AND NEED NOT OBTAIN A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR; ANY DELAYS AFTER THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD ARE IRRELEVANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed because plaintiff bank took steps to procure a default judgment within one year of the default. Any subsequent delays were irrelevant:

… [A]pproximately two months after the defendant’s default, the plaintiff moved for an order of reference. The fact that the Supreme Court later “marked off the calendar” the motion was irrelevant for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c) because the plaintiff was only required to “take proceedings for the entry of judgment” within the one-year time frame, and not actually obtain the judgment … . “[I]t is enough that the plaintiff timely takes the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference to establish that it initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c)” … . … [T]he plaintiff was not required to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c) … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Khalil, 2022 NY Slip Op 04898, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: To avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) a plaintiff need only take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment within one year of the default and need not obtain a default judgment within a year; any delays after the one-year period are irrelevant.

 

/

THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FURTHER DISCOVERY PRIOR TO THE INQUEST ON DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defaulting defendant whose answer had been struck was not entitled to further discovery for the inquest on damages:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to compel the plaintiff to provide additional discovery. “While a defaulting defendant is entitled to present testimony and evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses at the inquest on damages, such a defendant is not entitled to any further discovery since its answer was stricken” … . Here, since the court struck the defendant’s answer … the defendant “is not entitled to any further discovery” … . Brasil-Puello v Weisman, 2022 NY Slip Op 04893, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: A defaulting defendant whose answer has been struck is not entitled to discovery prior to the inquest on damages.

 

/ , ,

BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS BY CERTIFICATEHOLDERS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES TRUSTS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, dismissed the remaining actions brought by certificateholders against the trustee (US Bank National Association) for residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) trusts. The opinion is fact-specific, based upon contract language, and cannot be fairly summarized here:

This case involves residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Usually, this type of case is filed by an RMBS trustee because they are generally the only party with standing to assert the trust’s right to compel repurchase of defective loans and to take action against the parties responsible for the improper servicing of loans. Here, however, plaintiffs, as certificateholders of nine RMBS trusts, bring this action for breach of contract against defendant U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee of the nine RMBS trusts, for failure to carry out its alleged duties as trustee in response to the contractual breaches by other transaction parties. The main issues raised in this appeal are: (1) whether the governing trust documents imposed contractual obligations on the trustee … to identify and take action before an event of default (EOD) arose (pre-EOD claims); and (2) whether plaintiffs may rely on the servicers’ annual assessments and the trustee’s letter to the servicer to satisfy the “written notice” element of the claim that the trustee breached its contractual obligations to take action as a “prudent” trustee after an EOD arose (post-EOD claims). Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v U.S. Bank N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 04886, First Dept 8-9-22

Practice Point: Here breach of contract actions by certificateholders against the trustee for residential mortgage backed securities trusts were dismissed.

 

/ , , ,

SEXUAL ABUSE FINDINGS IN A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR APPLYING THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE IN THIS CIVIL ACTION UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT; HEARSAY ADMITTED IN THE FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CIVIL ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a substantial dissent, determined defendant in this Child Victims Act action was not collaterally estopped from disputing the sexual abuse allegations based upon the related Family Court proceedings. Hearsay evidence properly admitted in Family Court is not admissible in this civil action in Supreme Court:

… [A]lthough the burden of proof for both the Family Court proceeding and these personal injury actions is the same, i.e., preponderance of the evidence … , hearsay evidence that was admissible in the underlying Family Court proceeding would not be admissible in the instant personal injury actions … . Inasmuch as our determination in the prior Family Court proceeding was based largely on hearsay evidence that would not be admissible in these civil actions, we agree with defendant that he should not be collaterally estopped from defending these actions and that the court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment on liability. Of Doe 44 v Erik P.R., 2022 NY Slip Op 04839, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Here the sexual abuse findings in a Family Court proceeding could not be the basis for collateral estoppel prohibiting defendant from disputing the child abuse allegation in this Child Victims Act action. Hearsay admitted in the Family Court proceeding is inadmissible in this civil proceeding.

 

/

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A LADDER INSTEAD OF THE SCISSORS LIFT CREATED THE SAFETY ISSUE LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE OPERATOR OF THE SCISSORS LIFT WOULD NOT ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ACCESS IT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a substantial dissent, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) action should have survived summary judgment. Plaintiff fell from a ladder attempting to pass sheet rock to another worker on a scissors lift. The dissent argued plaintiff should have used the scissors lift and therefore was the sole proximate cause of the fall. There was evidence the operator of the scissors lift refused to reposition it to allow plaintiff to access it, and, therefore, plaintiff’s use of the ladder was not the sole proximate case of his fall:

With respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, we conclude that defendants did not meet their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . … [D]efendants established that the coworker, who was operating and standing in the scissor lift at the time of the accident, denied plaintiff’s request for access to the device by refusing to reposition it to allow plaintiff to safely lift the sheetrock into place. We note that “[i]t is well established that there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury” … , and that “[q]uestions concerning . . . proximate cause are generally questions for the jury” … .

Our dissenting colleague argues that the court properly concluded that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident because he chose to use the ladder instead of the scissor lift. The court’s conclusion was based on plaintiff’s deposition testimony admitting that use of the scissor lift was the proper and expected way to perform the task of lifting the sheetrock. We disagree with the dissent’s conclusion. Although plaintiff testified that the scissor lift was the proper device to use for his work, that statement alone does not, under the unique circumstances of this case, establish that plaintiff knew that the scissor lift was “available” and “chose for no good reason” not to use it … . Further, “[w]here causation is disputed, summary judgment is not appropriate unless only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … and, here, in light of the coworker’s alleged conduct, the evidence is not conclusive about whether plaintiff chose to use the ladder over an “available” scissor lift for “no good reason.” Thomas v North Country Family Health Ctr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04836, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Apparently use of a scissors lift, not a ladder, was the appropriate method for the work. Plaintiff fell from a ladder attempting to do the work. There was evidence the operator of the scissors lift would not allow plaintiff to access it. Therefore plaintiff’s use of the ladder may not have been the sole proximate cause of the fall and the defense motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. There was a substantial dissent.

 

/ ,

HERE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED DECADES AGO IN MASSACHUSETTS AND SUED UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT WHICH SERVES TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ORDINARILY THE BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES TO OUT-OF-STATE TORTS REQUIRING THE ACTION TO BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH NEW YORK AND THE FOREIGN STATE’S LAWS; HERE THE “RESIDENT EXCEPTION” APPLIED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF’S WERE NEW YORK RESIDENTS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE; THEREFORE THE ACTION NEED ONLY BE TIMELY UNDER NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “resident exception” to the borrowing statute applied to New-York-resident plaintiffs who allegedly were sexually abused decades ago at a camp in Massachusetts run by Syracuse University. Ordinarily New York’s borrowing statute requires that an action for an out-of-state tort be timely under both New York’s Child Victims Act and the foreign state’s statute of limitations. However, there is an exception to that rule when the plaintiffs, abused in a foreign state, were New York residents at the time of the abuse:

“When a nonresident sues on a cause of action accruing outside New York, CPLR 202 requires the cause of action to be timely under the limitation[s] periods of both New York and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued” … . In tort cases, the Court of Appeals has held that “a cause of action accrues at the time and in the place of the injury” … . Thus, for [such] claims to survive, they must be timely under both CPLR 214-g and the applicable [foreign state’s] statute of limitations. …

… [Plaintiffs] were New York residents when the … causes of action accrued. Pursuant to the “resident exception” of the borrowing statute … , a claim that accrues in favor of a New York resident will be governed by the New York statute of limitations regardless of where the claim accrued (see CPLR 202 … . … [Teh Child Victims Act] revival statute applies … . Shapiro v Syracuse Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 04835, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Ordinarily an action based on out-of-state sexual abuse of a child decades ago must be timely under both New York’s Child Victim’s Act and the foreign state’s statute of limitations. However, if the child was a New York resident at the time of the out-of-state abuse, only the extended statute of limitations provided by the Child Victims Act applies.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF RENTED DEFENDANT’S COTTAGE AND WAS INJURED WHEN THE DECK COLLAPSED; PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON RES IPSA LQUITUR AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WHO CONSTRUCTED THE DECK SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; A PROPERTY OWNER HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO THE PUBLIC TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT A PROPERTY OWNER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s causes of action based upon res ipsa loquitur and vicarious liability for a contractor who constructed the deck should have survived a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff rented a cottage from defendant. While plaintiff was on the deck, it collapsed:

In New York, in order to establish liability under that doctrine, the plaintiff must establish that the event was: “(1) of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) . . . caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; [and] (3) . . . not . . . due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff”…. . “The exclusive control requirement . . . is that the evidence must afford a rational basis for concluding that the cause of the accident was probably such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it” … .. “The purpose is simply to eliminate within reason all explanations for the injury other than the defendant’s negligence” … . …

“Generally, a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . The “most commonly accepted rationale” for that rule is that “one who employs an independent contractor has no right to control the manner in which the work is to be done and, thus, the risk of loss is more sensibly placed on the contractor” … . There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule. “A party may be vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor in performing [n]on-delegable duties . . . arising out of some relation toward the public or the particular plaintiff” … . To determine whether a nondelegable duty exists, the court must conduct “a sui generis inquiry” because the court’s conclusion rests on policy considerations … . Although “[t]here are no clearly defined criteria for identifying duties that are nondelegable[,] . . . [t]he most often cited formulation is that a duty will be deemed nondelegable when the responsibility is so important to the community that the employer should not be permitted to transfer it to another” … . Here, we conclude that defendant owes a nondelegable duty to the public to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition … , and thus that defendant failed to establish as matter of law that she may not be held liable for the actions of her independent contractor … . McGirr v Shifflet, 2022 NY Slip Op 04831, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was injured when the deck of the cottage rented from defendant collapsed. Plaintiff’s causes of action based on res ipsa loguitur and vicarious liability for the contractor who built the deck should not have been dismissed. There was a question of fact whether defendant had a nondelegable duty to the public to keep the premises safe, an exception to the general rule that a property owner is not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of an independent contractor.

 

/ ,

THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED UNDER DURESS AND WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined the postnuptial agreement was not signed under duress and was not unconscionable:

Initially, we conclude that the court erred insofar as it held that plaintiff signed the 2017 agreement under duress as a result of defendant’s emotional abuse. An agreement is voidable on the ground of duress “when it is established that the party making the claim was forced to agree to it by means of a wrongful threat precluding the exercise of his [or her] free will” … . Generally, “the aggrieved party must demonstrate that threats of an unlawful act compelled his or her performance of an act which he or she had the legal right to abstain from performing” … . “[T]he threat must be such as to deprive the party of the exercise of free will” … . Here, even accepting as true plaintiff’s allegations that defendant persistently urged him to sign the 2017 agreement and threatened to tell the parties’ children of plaintiff’s wrongful actions in the past, such conduct did not amount to any unlawful acts on the part of defendant sufficient to constitute duress … .

… [P]laintiff failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the 2017 agreement was unconscionable. “An agreement is unconscionable if it is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … . The fact that defendant was represented by counsel but plaintiff was not is a factor for the court to consider, but is not dispositive … . As relevant here, in the 2017 agreement each party waived his or her rights in the other party’s separate property, which was defined in that agreement. … . …[T]he parties waived any right to receive maintenance. … Plaintiff … signed … three postnuptial agreements during the course of the marriage, and the testimony of both parties revealed that the parties conducted their finances in accordance with the terms of the agreements. … [I]t cannot be said that the 2017 agreement was such that it would “shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any [person] of common sense” … . Campbell v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 04875, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: This decision includes concise descriptions of the criteria for determining whether a postnuptial agreement was signed under duress and whether the agreement is unconscionable.

 

/ ,

THE CELL PHONE RECORDS OF PLAINTIFF-DRIVER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL POSSIBLE USES OF THE CELL PHONE WHICH ARE NOT REVEALED BY THE RECORDS; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE CELL PHONE TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS USING IT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this traffic accident case were entitled to access to plaintiff-driver’s (Farrell’s) cell phone to determine whether the phone was being used at the time of the accident. There are certain uses of the phone which were not revealed by the cell phone records already provided to defendants:

Although the cell phone records subsequently obtained from the service provider established that Farrell was not talking on his phone at the time of the accident, they did not indicate whether he opened or sent text messages during the relevant time period. On the phone used by Farrell, texts were sent as encrypted “iMessages” that do not show up on phone records. Moreover, the phone records did not indicate whether Farrell was using any applications on his phone, such as Snapchat or Facebook. * * *

Defendants “satisf[ied] the threshold requirement that the[ir] request [was] reasonably calculated to yield information that [was] ‘material and necessary’—i.e., relevant—” to issues involved in the action … . “The test is one of usefulness and reason” … . In support of the motion … defendants submitted evidence that Farrell was traveling at close to 80 miles per hour seconds before the accident, which occurred on a residential road near an elementary school. Defendants also submitted evidence that Farrell did not brake before colliding with the school bus. Evidence concerning whether Farrell was distracted before the collision is relevant to the issues involved in this negligence action, and defendants’ request for production of or access to his cellular phone is reasonably calculated to yield relevant information … , especially considering that Farrell is unable, due to his injuries, to provide any information regarding his activities in the moments before the accident … . Tousant v Aragona, 2022 NY Slip Op 04871, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Here defendants were entitled to discovery of plaintiff-driver’s cell phone to determine whether plaintiff was using it at the time of the traffic accident. Although defendants had already been provided with the cell-phone records, there are several uses of the phone which are not revealed by the records.

 

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