You are here: / THE REACH OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND THE MEANING OF “OWNER”...

Search Results

/

THE REACH OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND THE MEANING OF “OWNER” AS USED IN THAT STATUTE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant 2 Big Meadows’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been granted. The court explained the reach of liability under Labor Law 241 (6) and the meaning of the term “owner” as used in the statute:

Liability under Labor Law § 241(6) extends to “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents . . . when constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith.” “[T]he burden placed upon a defendant seeking summary judgment on the ground that it is not an owner is a heavy one” … . * * *

… “[T]he term ‘owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a person ‘who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for his [or her] benefit'” … . “[T]he critical factor in determining whether a party is an ‘owner’ is whether it ‘possessed the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed; that is, the right to control the work'” … . The evidentiary submissions furnished by 2 Big Meadow in support of its motion for summary judgment did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether 2 Big Meadow, which clearly benefitted from the renovation of its property, was involved in contracting to have the construction project performed or had the authority to insist on proper safety practices. Cruz v 1142 Bedford Ave., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 08220, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

/ ,

THE COUNTY POLICE OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO THE EFFECT SHE HAD NO REASON TO FEEL UNSAFE DID NOT CREATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP; THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AT THE HANDS OF THE FATHER OF HER YOUNG CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint failed to state a cause of action against the county stemming from the shooting death of plaintiff’s decedent at the hands of the father of her child (Jenkins). Plaintiff’s decedent had repeatedly requested of the county police that Jenkins be arrested and allegedly was told there was no reason for her to feel unsafe. The officer’s statement did not create a special relationship with the county such that the county could be held liable:

“Generally, a municipality may not be held liable for the failure to provide police protection because the duty to provide such protection is owed to the public at large, rather than to any particular individual” … . “A narrow exception to the rule exists where a special relationship exists between the municipality and the injured parties” … . The elements of a special relationship are (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured, (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm, (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party, and (4) the injured party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the complaint fails to allege facts that could establish an affirmative undertaking or justifiable reliance on any such undertaking by the defendants … . The complaint alleged that the decedent was told by an officer, weeks before the killing, that the officer “did not see any reason why Mr. Jenkins would hurt [the decedent or her sister] and that there was no reason for them to feel unsafe.” This statement, or statements to that effect, which could not be construed as conveying any promise or intention to protect the decedent, are not a basis on which a special duty may be premised … . Coleman v County of Suffolk, 2021 NY Slip Op 08219, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

/

THE INSURER’S NEARLY TWO-MONTH DELAY BEFORE DISCLAIMING COVERAGE RENDERED THE DISCLAIMER UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage was not timely as a matter of law. The delay in notification was about two months:

“[A] timely disclaimer pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(d) is required when a claim falls within the coverage terms but is denied based on a policy exclusion” … . The purpose of Insurance Law § 3420 is to protect the insured, injured party, or any other claimant with an interest in the outcome, from prejudice based on a delayed denial of coverage … . “[T]imeliness of an insurer’s disclaimer is measured from the point in time when the insurer first learns of the grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage” … . The question as to whether the insurer disclaimed coverage as soon as reasonably possible after it first learns of the ground for disclaimer is necessarily case-specific … . “However, where there is no excuse or mitigating factor, the issue poses a legal question for the court, and courts have found relatively short periods to be unreasonable as a matter of law” … .

Here, defendant’s disclaimer, dated December 24, 2014, was untimely as a matter of law. Defendant’s position that it only received plaintiff’s claim on December 16, 2014 is unpersuasive. Defendant was on notice of the underlying accident several months before it disclaimed coverage and commenced an investigation with respect to the alleged accident. Therefore, defendant was sufficiently aware of the facts that would support a disclaimer, but waited almost two months before disclaiming coverage … . ADD Plumbing, Inc. v Burlington Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 01498, First Dept 3-16-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF HAD TO USE AN A-FRAME LADDER ON TOP OF A SCAFFOLD TO REACH THE WORK AREA; THE SCAFFOLD MOVED AND PLAINTIFF FELL TO THE GROUND; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and one of the Labor Law 241(6) causes of action properly survived summary judgment. Plaintiff was using a scaffold that wasn’t high enough. He therefore used an A-frame ladder in the closed position on top of the scaffold. The scaffold move, the ladder fell over and plaintiff fell to the ground:

… [D]efendants failed to raise a triable issue. Defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident is unavailing, since he was not provided a proper safety device to prevent his fall, and that failure is a cause of his injuries … .

Additionally, contrary to defendants’ argument, there is no requirement for Labor Law § 240(1) purposes that plaintiff know exactly the cause of his accident, or what caused the scaffold or ladder to move, where there is no dispute that the safety devices failed … . Moreover, it is not relevant that the ladder and scaffold were free from defects … .

[Defendant] failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on alleged violations of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii) and (iv), as there is sufficient testimony in the record to support such violations, including that the ladder was unsecured and lacked rubber footing, and no one was holding it in place at the time of plaintiff’s fall. [Defendant] failed to establish as a matter of law that the alleged violations were not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident. Martinez v ST-DIL LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01513, First Dept 3-16-21

 

/ ,

THE ELEVATOR COMPANY, BY CONTRACT, HAD COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE; THEREFORE THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM IN THIS RES IPSA LOQUITUR ELEVATOR-MALFUNCTION-ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, recalling and vacating a decision in this case released on December 8, 2020, determined the building owner (1067 Fifth) and manager (Elliman) did not have constructive or action notice of the defect in the elevator door which allegedly caused it to close on plaintiff’s shoulder, pinning her while the elevator descended. However liability may be demonstrated under the res ipsa loquitur theory. But because the building owner and manager had, by contract, relinquished all control over the maintenance of the elevator to defendant elevator company, American, their motions for summary judgment were granted:

… [U]nder the terms of its contract with 1067 Fifth, American was responsible for providing “full comprehensive maintenance and repair services” for the elevators, which included maintaining “[t]he entire vertical transportation system,” including “all engineering, material, labor, testing, and inspections needed to achieve work specified by the contract.” Further, under the terms of the contract, maintenance “include[s], but is not limited to, preventive services, emergency callback services, inspection and testing services, repair and/or direct replacement component renewal procedures.” The contract also provided for American to “schedule [ ] systematic examinations, adjustments, cleaning and lubrication of all machinery, machinery spaces, hoistways and pits,” and to do all “repairs, renewals, and replacements . . . as soon as scheduled or other examinations reveal the necessity of the same.” Further, American agreed to provide emergency call-back service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Given such broad contractual responsibilities, American’s contract can be said to have “entirely displaced” the responsibility of 1067 Fifth and Elliman to maintain the safety of the building’s elevators, which gave rise to a duty owed directly to plaintiff by American (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). Sanchez v 1067 Fifth Ave. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 01522, First Dept 3-16-21

 

/ ,

WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN AN ORDER OR A JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION UPON WHICH IT IS BASED, THE DECISION CONTROLS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that where a judgment or order is inconsistent with the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls:

“A written order [or judgment] must conform strictly to the court’s decision and in the event of an inconsistency between a judgment and a decision or order upon which it is based, the decision or order controls” … . “Such an inconsistency may be corrected either by way of a motion for resettlement or on appeal” … .

The motion court’s decision, amended to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action for breach of the … modified agreement, also found that plaintiff was entitled to a money judgment in his favor for past due amounts owed. Because there is a conflict between the relief the motion court found plaintiff was entitled to in its decision, and the relief granted to plaintiff in the judgment, which made no provision for a money judgment as to plaintiff’s first cause of action, the court’s decision controls. Schwartzbard v Cogan, 2021 NY Slip Op 01523, First Dept 3-16-21

 

/ ,

THE DEFAULT LETTER, WHICH INDICATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE IF THE DEFAULT WERE NOT CURED, DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage debt was not accelerated by a letter indicating the debt would be accelerated on a specific future date if the arears were not paid:

… [T]he issue is whether the May 2008 default letter was an acceleration event that triggered the statute of limitations. We hold that is was not. Thus, the second action, commenced in October 2014, was timely. To that end, the May 2008 letter provided that, if the default was not cured “on or before June 10, 2008, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” Since this letter was “‘merely an expression of future intent that fell short of an actual acceleration,’ which could ‘be changed in the interim'” … , it did not accelerate the debt … . “[T]he letter did not seek immediate payment of the entire, outstanding loan, but referred to acceleration only as a future event, indicating the debt was not accelerated at the time the letter was written” … . Further, the May 2008 letter specifically discussed other non-acceleration options for defendant, including a repayment plan or loan modification, which plaintiff, as the holder of the note, should be able to do “without running the risk of being deemed to have taken the drastic step of accelerating the loan” … . Thus, the statute of limitations was not triggered until the debt was accelerated by the commencement of the first action in February 2009 … , rendering the commencement of the second action, in October 2014, timely as it was within the six-year statute of limitations …  . GMAT Legal Tit. Trust 2014-1, Us Bank Natl. Assn. v Wood, 2021 NY Slip Op 01455, Third Dept 3-11-21

 

/ , , ,

TWO ZONING VIOLATION SUMMONSES ADDRESSING THE SAME USE OF THE PROPERTY WERE NOT DUPLICATIVE; THEREFORE THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS’ FAILURE TO APPEAL THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST SUMMONS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE SECOND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined that two actions brought by the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) seeking the removal of four large industrial shipping containers from petitioner’s auto-repair-shop premises were not duplicative. Therefore the DOB’s failure to appeal the dismissal of the first summons did not preclude the second summons. The second summons was dismissed by the hearing officer but was reinstated by the OATH [NYC Office of Trials and Hearings] Appeals Unit. The First Department upheld the reversal by the Appeals Unit. [The decision covers several substantive issues not summarized here]:

Petitioners argue primarily that although the summonses cite to two different provisions of the law — a Zoning Resolution violation and a certificate of occupancy violation pursuant to Administrative Code § 28-118.3.2 — the same proof and arguments were presented at the hearings for both summonses, namely, the certificate of occupancy, photographs depicting storage of the shipping containers on the property, the argument that the shipping containers would be transformed into trucks, and the counterargument that the storage was not a permitted use. They contend that this analysis is sufficient to demonstrate the duplicative nature of the summonses. The argument is unavailing. * * *

Here … the same body of evidence is used to prove two different violations, a violation of the Zoning Resolution, which covers the permitted uses and businesses within a specific area, and a violation of the certificate of occupancy, which applies specifically to the property, and describes the legal occupancy and use of that property. Moreover, the remedy for the two summonses is not the same. The first summons demanded that petitioners discontinue the illegal use, while the second summons provided for alternative remedies — discontinue illegal use or amend the certificate of occupancy. Accordingly, the OATH Appeals Unit’s finding that the second summons was not duplicative of the first summons was not arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Karakash v Del Valle, 2021 NY Slip Op 01484, First Dept 3-11-21

 

/

THE PETITION SEEKING EMAILS AND RECIPIENT LISTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM FROM THE VILLAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUEST COULD NOT BE GRANTED WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS; PETITIONER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL, THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking emails and the related recipient lists in electronic form should not have been dismissed because the denial of the request did not indicate no one employed by the village had the expertise to provide the information in electronic form. In addition, the appeal of the denial of another similar request should not have been deemed untimely because the petitioner was never advised of the availability of an administrative appeal:

Guazzoni {the Village Trustee] stated that he lacked the technical sophistication to manually transfer the email addresses of each of his individual recipients onto an Excel spreadsheet in order to provide an electronically formatted response to the FOIL request. However, Guazzoni did not address whether any other employee of the Village could, with a reasonable degree of time and effort, create an Excel spreadsheet that would comply with the terms of the FOIL request. It cannot be said, therefore, that the amended petition fails to state a cause of action, as it presents a question of fact as to whether reasonable efforts by Village employees could be undertaken to provide an electronically formatted response … . …

Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) and (4)(a) requires that FOIL requests be granted or denied by an agency within five business days, and that any administrative appeal of a denial, as required for exhausting administrative remedies, be undertaken within 30 days of the denial. 21 NYCRR 1401.7(c) provides that a FOIL request is deemed denied if there is no response to the request within five business days. However, since there was no advisement to the petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal as required by 21 NYCRR 1401.7(b), the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the petitioner’s administrative appeal, which was filed on July 13, 2017, was time barred … . Matter of Madden v Village of Tuxedo Park, 2021 NY Slip Op 01415, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS; THE JUDGE LEFT IT TO MOTHER AND HER CHILD TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should not not have left it to mother and her child to determine when mother will have parental access. The child lives with stepmother who is married to father. Father, who is incarcerated, did not want mother to have parental access:

“A court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child” … . “While a child’s views are to be considered in determining custody or parental access, they are not determinative” … . Moreover, “[a]n access provision which is conditioned on the desires of [a] child[ ] tends to defeat the right of parental access” … .

Here, the order appealed from directed that the mother was only entitled to parental access with the child as often as she and the child agree. That provision effectively conditions the mother’s parental access on the child’s wishes and leaves the determination as to whether there should be any parental access at all to the child. Moreover, the Family Court’s directive as to parental access creates the potential for influence upon the child, since the stepmother, with whom he lives, is married to the father, who is opposed to the mother having any parental access with the child. Thus, the court’s directive as to parental access must be set aside … . Matter of Clezidor v Lexune, 2021 NY Slip Op 01409, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

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