You are here: / NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY...

Search Results

/

NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the building owner (Grand) and the prospective purchaser of the building (Empire) should have been dismissed. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor which apparently had just been mopped by a co-worker. Neither Grand nor Empire had general supervisory authority over the premises and did not supervise or control the work of plaintiff or the co-worker:

The building was owned by defendant Grand but was under a contract of sale to defendant Empire, with a closing date of February 1, 2017. Under the contract of sale, Empire was given access to the premises prior to closing to perform renovations and to stage and lease the apartments. Empire hired plaintiff’s employer Infinity to act as general contractor for the renovations. According to the record, Empire did not have any employees at the premises on the date of the accident and did not supervise Infinity’s work. Grand had no employees or agents at the premises full time, but an employee of a company related to Grand would occasionally visit the building to check that there were no problems and that everything was clean. The employee visited the building approximately four or five times, approximately twice in the four months prior to the accident, and once during construction. No one employed by Grand regularly supervised the construction ongoing at the premises. Arnold v Empire 326 Grand LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00965, First Dept 2-15-22

 

/ , ,

THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined no part of plaintiff’s automobile accident settlement was available to satisfy a medical lien held by the NYC Human Resources Administration (HRA) because the settlement did not include medical expenses:

HRA asserted a lien on the proceeds of plaintiff’s settlement of an action arising out of an automobile accident in an amount representing the total amount of the medical bills it paid in connection with the treatment of the injuries plaintiff sustained in the accident (see Social Services Law § 104-b). However, plaintiff was barred from suing for medical expenses, because her basic economic losses were less than $50,000 (see Insurance Law § 5102[a]). Moreover, in light of the particular record before us, no portion of the proceeds of the settlement represents medical expenses, and HRA may not recover any portion of the proceeds for its medical costs … . Marmol v Mutino, 2022 NY Slip Op 00970, First Dept 2-15-22

​

/ ,

IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS TO RESPONDENTS’ ABUTTING BUILDING TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO LICENSE FEES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, ENGINEERING FEES, ETC., ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BUILDING AND TO COMPENSATE FOR INTERFERERENCE WITH THE USE OF THEIR BUILDING, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY DAMAGE TO RESPONDENTS’ BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the grant of a license to petitioner, pursuant to RPAPL 881, to enter respondents’ abutting property to protect the abutting property during construction work on petitioner’s building, but vacated or reduced some of the specific costs and/or damages awarded. The First Department noted that attorney’s fees, license fees and engineering fees, etc., associated with the respondents’ efforts to protect their building and the loss of use and enjoyment of their building during construction are properly assessed to the petitioner:

What petitioner seeks is essentially to compel respondents to grant it a license on its own terms. However, as we have recognized, because “[t]he respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it . . . [e]quity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access” … . Thus, the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention that a license fee constitutes a windfall unless there are some actual damages, such as lost business, we have found that a license fee is warranted “where the granted license will entail substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property during the [license] period, thus decreasing the value of the property during that time” … .

Similarly, a compulsory licensor should be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ and engineering fees … . Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v 29 W. 19 Condominium, 2022 NY Slip Op 00975, First Dept 2-15-22

/ ,

PLAINTIFF, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, PROPERLY PURSUED CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO DISSOLUTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-dissolved-corporation properly pursued claims and liabilities which arose prior to dissolution:

A dissolved corporation is permitted to pursue claims and liabilities that arose prior to dissolution as part of the winding up process (Business Corporation Law §§ 1005[a][1]; 1006[a][4]; [b] …). Plaintiff’s commencement of this litigation, as well as the settlement of other predissolution claims against defendant, and its use of settlement funds to satisfy its outstanding liabilities in the wage violations case, are expressly contemplated and authorized by Business Corporation Law § 1006(a)(4). Thus, it was error to find that plaintiff’s dissolution resulted in it lacking capacity to maintain this action against defendant for work performed before plaintiff was dissolved … .

Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s winding up period has not been so extended as to be considered unreasonable … . TADCO Constr. Corp. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 00990, First Dept 2-15-22

 

/ , , ,

THE NYC LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REMITTED THE MATTER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION CONCERNING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE TENANTS PURPORTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION FOR LOFT LAW COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the NYC Loft Board properly remitted the matter for further proceedings in this proceeding involving a settlement agreement in which the tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage:

… [T]he matter [is] remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

In accordance with its regulations (see 29 RCNY § 1-06 [j] [5]), the Loft Board reviewed and rejected the parties’ proposed settlement agreement as perpetuating an illegal living arrangement. The rationality of that determination is not before us … . Under these limited circumstances, it was not irrational for the Board to remand for further proceedings, thereby declining to give effect to a provision of the settlement agreement in which tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage. Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 00957, Ct App 2-15-22

 

/ ,

PURSUANT TO THE LOFT LAW AND THE REAL PROPERTY LAW, THE LANDLORD WAS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THE TENANCY AND REGAIN POSSESSION OF THE LOFT IN A HOLDOVER PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the the Loft Law did not prohibit the landlord, Aurora, from terminating the tenancy and regaining possession of the loft by a holdover proceeding. The opinion and the dissenting opinion are comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Aurora Associates LLC, the owner of Loft 3B at 78 Reade Street in Manhattan, commenced this holdover proceeding to recover possession and terminate the tenancy of the current occupant. Summary judgment was granted to the tenant on the ground that Aurora could not terminate his tenancy because the loft unit was subject to rent stabilization. We must decide whether a loft unit located in an interim multiple dwelling covered by the provisions of the Loft Law but exempt from the rent regulation provisions of that statute by operation of a sale of the prior tenant’s rights and improvements is otherwise subject to rent stabilization. We hold that it is not … . * * *

As the Housing Court Judge explained, “[T]he core of the parties’ dispute is the rent regulatory status of the subject premises” because “[I]f the subject premises is unregulated, termination of a tenancy pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a is a remedy available to Petitioner,” and “[i]f the subject premises is rent-stabilized, RPL … 232-a is not a remedy available to Petitioner.” * * *

Here, the prior owner purchased rights and improvements in a particular unit in this Loft Law-eligible building, removing that unit from the Loft Law’s rent regulation provisions, entitling Aurora to charge a market rent and, pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a, to regain possession of the apartment by means of a holdover proceeding. Matter of Aurora Assoc. LLC v Locatelli, 2022 NY Slip Op 00958, CtApp 2-15-22

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT “I WOULD LOVE TO GO PRO SE” WAS NOT A DEFINITIVE REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND THEREFORE THE STATEMENT DID NOT TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A SEARCHING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined defendant’s statement “I would love to go pro se” was not a definitive commitment to self-representation and therefore did not trigger an inquiry by the judge:

… [D]efendant did not clearly and unequivocally request to proceed pro se. During a colloquy with the trial court, defendant referenced the unsuccessful application to relieve his assigned counsel made at his prior appearance, and he renewed that application, claiming that counsel was “ineffective.” The court denied the application and rejected defendant’s renewed attempt to read aloud from what defendant had previously referred to as “my testimony.” Upon review of the record as a whole, defendant’s retort, “I would love to go pro se,” immediately after the court’s denial of his applications “d[id] not reflect a definitive commitment to self-representation” that would trigger a searching inquiry by the trial court … . People v Duarte, 2022 NY Slip Op 00960, Ct App 2-15-22

 

/ , , ,

THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the so-called two-hour rule does not apply to a driver’s license revocation administrative hearing after a DWI arrest. Within two hours of arrest the police can warn the driver that a refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol breath test is admissible at trial. If the request to submit to the test is made and the refusal warnings are given more than two hours after arrest, however, the refusal is not admissible at trial. Here the petitioner refused the DWI breath test three hours after arrest, after the refusal warnings were given. He argued the two-hour rule should apply and the refusal should not be considered at the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) administrative license revocation hearing:

Petitioner’s reliance on the statutory interpretation analysis in People v Odum [31 NY3d 344] as support for a motorist’s substantive right to refuse a chemical test without consequence is misplaced. Odum addressed the admissibility at trial of the results of a chemical test administered more than two hours after the defendant’s arrest, and whether the refusal warnings, including the inaccurate warning regarding the use of any refusal at a criminal trial, as given to him rendered his consent to the test involuntary. We emphasized that the 1973 statute authorizing the admissibility of evidence of a test refusal at a criminal trial was in derogation of common law and concluded as a result that the statutory provision authorizing such admission—Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f)—had to be strictly construed to include the two-hour rule … . In stark contrast, the limitation on the scope of the revocation hearing in section 1194 (2) (c) is not in derogation of the common law and is a subsequently enacted provision that specifically governs the issues that may be considered at an administrative hearing … . Matter of Endara-Caicedo v Vehicles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00959, CtApp 2-15-22

 

/ ,

LABOR LAW 198-B, WHICH PROHIBITS WAGE KICKBACKS, DOES NOT PROVIDE A FREESTANDING PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined Labor Law 198-b, which prohibits wage kickbacks, does not provide a freestanding private right of action:

Labor Law § 198-b prohibits “kickbacks” by making it unlawful for any person to “request, demand, or receive” part of an employee’s wages or salary on the condition that “failure to comply with such request or demand will prevent such employee from procuring or retaining employment.” Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor offense (see Labor Law § 198-b [5]). Labor Law § 218 also provides for administrative enforcement of section 198-b by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor. The statute empowers the Commissioner to grant affected employees restitution and liquidated damages in addition to imposing civil penalties. * * *

… [W]e apply a three-factor test to determine whether the legislative intent favors an implied right: “‘(1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme'” … . * * *

The statutory scheme … expressly provides two robust enforcement mechanisms, “indicating that the legislature considered how best to effectuate its intent and provided the avenues for relief it deemed warranted” … . Konkur v Utica Academy of Science Charter Sch., 2022 NY Slip Op 00911, CtApp 2-10-22

 

/ ,

ANSWERING A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (CBA’S) DID NOT PROVIDE RETIREES WITH A VESTED RIGHT SUCH THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS AWARDED AT RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSEQUENT CBA’S (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, addressing certified questions from the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, determined the relevant provisions of the civil-service collective bargaining agreements (CBA’s) did not create a vested right in the health insurance benefits afforded retirees. In other words, the CBA’s did not provide that the coverage of health insurance premiums vested at retirement such that reductions in coverage in subsequent CBA’s would not apply:

… [N]one of the CBA provisions identified by the Second Circuit in the first certified question establish a vested right to lifetime fixed premium contributions, either singly or in combination. Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, CtApp 2-10-22

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