You are here: / CERTAIN LABOR LAW 200, COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE, AND LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES...

Search Results

/ ,

CERTAIN LABOR LAW 200, COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE, AND LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; QUESTION OF FACT RE: WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; THE PROJECT COORDINATOR MET SEVERAL DEFINITIONS OF ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1), INCLUDING AS THE HOLDER OF AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined common law negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action should have been dismissed re: several defendants because of the absence of supervisory control, several of the Labor Law 241(6) causes of action should have been dismissed because the Industrial Code provisions did not apply, and plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action because there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the fall, The dissenters argued plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff fell when he switched from one ladder to another and the ladder kicked out from under him. The definition of “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) was discussed in some depth:

Although the term owner generally refers to the titleholder of the property, it may “also encompass[ ] one who has an interest in the property [and] . . . who contracted for or otherwise ha[d] the right to control the work” … . Here, Tucker Homes [the project coordinator] had an equitable interest in the property by virtue of provisions in its contract with the titleholders that permitted it to take possession of the deed and obtain legal title to the property if the titleholders did not pay for the home’s construction. Moreover, Tucker Homes, as the only entity that had a contractual relationship with RGGT [defendant subcontractor], was the only entity that could insist that RGGT adhere to safety practices and obtain insurance. The titleholders, by contrast, had no contractual relationship with RGGT and did not obtain any insurance on the project. Thus, the court properly concluded that Tucker Homes, “as the only party with [both] a property interest and the right to insist on safety practices,” was an owner within the meaning of the Labor Law … . …

Even if Tucker Homes was not an “owner” for purposes of the Labor Law, we conclude that the court properly determined that Tucker Homes was a general contractor based on its power to enforce safety standards and essentially select the responsible subcontractors to perform work on the project, such as RGGT … . …

Plaintiff also met his burden of establishing that Tucker Homes was, at the very least, a statutory agent of the titleholders, and Tucker Homes did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Unrefuted evidence established that, under the terms of the subcontract, Tucker Homes had the power to supervise and control the work being done by RGGT at the time of the accident … . …

… [T]he court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and we further modify the order accordingly. Plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden on that part of the motion inasmuch as issues of fact exist whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Walkow v MJ Peterson/Tucker Homes, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04098, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/ ,

DECISION ON APPEAL RESERVED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision on the appeal and remitting the matter, determined County Court should have ruled on whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status:

Pursuant to CPL 720.10 (2) (a) (ii) and (3), because defendant was convicted of an armed felony offense (see CPL 1.20 [41]), he is ineligible for a youthful offender adjudication unless the court determines that one of two mitigating factors is present. “If the court, in its discretion, determines that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors is present and states the reasons for that determination on the record, then no further determination is required” (… see People v Middlebrooks, 25 NY3d 516, 527 [2015]). “If, on the other hand, the court determines that one or more of those factors are present, and therefore defendant is an eligible youth, the court then must determine whether he is a youthful offender” … . As the People correctly concede, the court failed to follow the procedure set forth in Middlebrooks. People v Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 04092, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN THE TRUCK IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER APPARENTLY FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND PULLED INTO DEFENDANT’S PATH; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Plaintiff was a passenger in a truck which apparently failed to yield the right of way and pulled into the path of defendant’s car. The majority held there was a question of fact whether defendant saw what she should have seen when approaching the intersection. The dissenters argued defendant was entitled to assume the truck would yield the right of way:

” It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield’ ” ( … see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]). “Nevertheless, a driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection . . . but, rather, is bound to use such care to avoid [a] collision as an ordinarily prudent [motorist] would have used under the circumstances” … . Here, defendant’s own submissions, including her own deposition testimony, raised an issue of fact whether she met her “duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident” … . Brooks v Davis, 2020 NY Slip Op 04021,, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A NEIGHBOR FOR TRESPASS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW; THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in this dispute between neighbors should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the neighbor repeatedly damaged and defaced plaintiff’s property and installed a surveillance camera aimed at plaintiff’s property. The Fourth Department went through the elements required for issuance of a preliminary injunction and described the proof offered in support of the trespass, private nuisance and Civil Rights Law causes of action:

Plaintiff’s supplemental affidavit and photographs submitted in support of the motion demonstrate that Nichols repeatedly drove across her lawn and blew snow with his snowblower onto the side of plaintiff’s house, allegedly causing damage to her awning and fence. Both events were intentional invasions of plaintiff’s interest in the exclusive possession of her land. Furthermore, although “an action for trespass over the lands of one property owner may not be maintained where the purported trespasser has acquired an easement of way over the land in question” … , plaintiff established that the acts allegedly committed by Nichols on the easement exceeded the scope of the easement and did not constitute a reasonable use of his interest in the easement … . Thus, plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her trespass claim. …

The evidence submitted by plaintiff established that Nichols drove across plaintiff’s lawn, used a snowblower to blow snow onto her house, tampered with and removed her property markers, parked his vehicle so as to obstruct plaintiff’s driveway, drove on the freshly paved driveway and left tire tracks in the asphalt, and repeatedly painted a white line across the driveway. That conduct exceeds the scope of the easement and may fairly be characterized as a substantial interference with plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of her property. Thus, plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her private nuisance claim.

Plaintiff’s affidavit and video evidence also submitted on the motion demonstrate that Nichols threatened to install a “150-foot night vision camera” in his backyard and to point it directly into plaintiff’s backyard and at her living room. As Nichols installed the surveillance camera, he stated to plaintiff, “It’s gonna look right in your fucking living room! . . . You’re on camera bitch! . . . Smile for the camera bitch!” Thus, plaintiff also demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim under Civil Rights Law § 52-a. Cangemi v Yeager, 2020 NY Slip Op 04023, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH SECONDARY EVIDENCE (HEARSAY TESTIMONY) AND EXTRINSIC DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR COLLATERAL MATTERS LIKE IMPEACHING CREDIBILITY, SUCH EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN IT IS RELEVANT TO A CORE ISSUE; HERE THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE PRESENTED TO A BANK EMPLOYEE WAS RELEVANT TO THE ‘THREATENED USE OF FORCE ‘ ELEMENT OF ROBBERY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s robbery conviction and ordering a new trial on that count, determined the defendant should have been allowed to present a witness to demonstrate the note he presented to the bank employee did not threaten the use of force (an element of the robbery charge). The Fourth Department noted that secondary evidence (hearsay testimony) and extrinsic documentary evidence, which is prohibited for collateral issues, may be admissible when the evidence is relevant to a core issue:

“It is well established that the party who is cross-examining a witness cannot introduce extrinsic documentary evidence or call other witnesses to contradict a witness’ answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching that witness’ credibility” … . That rule, however, “has no application where the issue to which the evidence relates is material in the sense that it is relevant to the very issues that the jury must decide” … . “Where the truth of the matter asserted in the proffered inconsistent statement is relevant to a core factual issue of a case, its relevancy is not restricted to the issue of credibility and its probative value is not dependent on the inconsistent statement. Under such circumstances, the right to present a defense may encompass[ ] the right to place before the [trier of fact] secondary forms of evidence, such as hearsay’ ” … . Here, defendant sought to call a witness whose testimony related to the content of the note defendant presented to the bank employee in the first incident. Defendant specifically sought to establish that the note he presented contained language that, according to defendant, did not threaten the immediate use of force, contrary to the testimony of the bank employee who received it. Although a threat of immediate use of force may be implicit and does not require the use of any specific words … , the use of threatening language is nevertheless a factor for the jury to consider when determining whether the defendant presented such a threat … . Inasmuch as the content of the note was relevant to whether defendant, either explicitly or implicitly, threatened the use of force, we conclude that the proposed testimony pertained to a noncollateral issue and that the court should have allowed the proposed witness to testify … . People v Snow, 2020 NY Slip Op 04024, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO A NONPARENT WITHOUT FIRST MAKING A FINDING WHETHER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, APPEAL HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not make the required initial finding of extraordinary circumstances before awarding custody of the children to a nonparent. Although the issue was not preserved, it was heard in the interest of justice:

” [A]s between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances . . . The nonparent has the burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances exist, and until such circumstances are shown, the court does not reach the issue of the best interests of the child’ ” … . That rule ” applies even if there is an existing order of custody concerning that child unless there is a prior determination that extraordinary circumstances exist’ ” … . A prior consent order does not by itself constitute a judicial finding or an admission of extraordinary circumstances … . There is no indication in the record that the court previously made a determination of extraordinary circumstances … . Matter of Byler v Byler, 2020 NY Slip Op 04025, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/ ,

THE INITIAL PROSECUTOR IN DEFENDANT’S CASE BECAME THE TRIAL JUDGE’S LAW CLERK; DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED AND WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; THE WAIVER WAS NOT ‘KNOWINGLY’ AND ‘INTELLIGENTLY’ MADE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction after a bench trial should have been granted. The initial prosecutor in defendant’s case became the trial judge’s law clerk. Defendant was never informed and waived his right to a jury trial. Defendant argued he would not have waived a jury trial had he known the former prosecutor was the trial judge’s law clerk:

The evidence at the hearing established that the prosecutor who appeared for over six months on the People’s behalf during the preliminary proceedings in this case was subsequently appointed to serve as the trial court’s confidential law clerk. When the law clerk brought that conflict to the trial court’s attention, the trial court appropriately screened the law clerk off from any participation in this case. When defendant sought to waive his right to a jury trial and to be tried by the court alone, however, the trial court—which had recognized the conflict and had already taken steps to mitigate it—failed to inform defendant that its law clerk had previously prosecuted defendant in this case. Moreover, although defense counsel was aware of the law clerk’s prior role as prosecutor, it is undisputed that defense counsel failed to inform defendant of that fact. Defense counsel subsequently admitted that, had he recalled the fact that the prosecutor had become the trial court’s law clerk, he would have advised defendant to retain his right to a jury trial. Additionally, defendant testified at the posttrial hearing that he would not have waived his right to a jury trial had he been aware of the fact that his former prosecutor was now serving as the trial court’s law clerk. Contrary to the motion court’s determination, defendant’s testimony in that regard was not incredible. Indeed, defendant identified rational, case-specific reasons why he distrusted the fairness of the law clerk.

Under the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial, which was made when he was the only participant in the waiver proceeding who was ignorant of the fact that his former prosecutor had become the trial judge’s legal advisor, was not tendered “knowingly and understandingly” and was not “based on an intelligent, informed judgment” … . People v Mineccia, 2020 NY Slip Op 04028, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/

COUNTY COURT MISAPPREHENDED THE LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED TOWN COURT’S ORDER TO EUTHANIZE RESPONDENT’S DOG; MATTER REMITTED TO TOWN COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and remitting the matter to Town Court, determined County Court misapprehended the applicable law in affirming Town Court’s finding that respondent’s dog (Brady) is a dangerous dog and directing the dog be euthanized pursuant to the Agricultural and Markets Law:

… [T]he court repeatedly misstated the applicable law. Before the hearing commenced, the court stated that, if it determined Brady was a dangerous dog, the court had only “two options”— euthanasia or permanent confinement. After the hearing, before delivering its decision from the bench, the court stated that it “can” order euthanasia “upon a finding the dog is dangerous.” Those statements are subtly different, and both are in error. As discussed above, mere dangerousness does not empower the court to order euthanasia or permanent confinement, which may be imposed only upon the establishment of an aggravating circumstance. Even where an aggravating circumstance is established, euthanasia and permanent confinement are not the court’s only options (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 [2], [3]). As a result of its mistaken understanding of the applicable law, the court ordered euthanasia without determining whether petitioner had established the existence of an aggravating circumstance and without considering other available relief.

We therefore modify County Court’s order by vacating that part affirming the order of the Justice Court insofar as it directed that respondent’s dog be euthanized, and we remit the matter to the Justice Court for a determination whether petitioner established the existence of an aggravating circumstance and for the imposition of remedial measures as permitted by statute and “as deemed appropriate under the circumstances” (Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 [2]). Matter of Town of Ogden v LaVilla, 2020 NY Slip Op 04032, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE FOR MANSLAUGHTER REDUCED BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND, REMORSE AND LACK OF A CRIMINAL HISTORY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s sentence for manslaughter based upon his background, remorse, and lack of a criminal history:

… [T]he 24-year determinate sentence is unduly harsh and severe considering, inter alia, defendant’s background, genuine show of remorse, and lack of prior criminal history. Thus, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the sentence to a determinate term of imprisonment of 19 years and five years of postrelease supervision, which falls within the sentence range negotiated by the parties … . People v Jeffords, 2020 NY Slip Op 04037, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

/

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR AND A PROSECUTION WITNESS WERE FRIENDS; DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO THE JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that defendant’s for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted. The juror and a prosecution witness were friends:

… [T]he prospective juror gave “some indication of bias” … by stating that her friendship with a prosecution witness “might” “affect [her] ability to be fair and impartial in this case” and that serving as a juror “might be awkward” in light of that friendship … .

Contrary to the court’s determination, the prospective juror did not give an unequivocal assurance of impartiality by merely stating, during follow-up questioning, that she would not feel compelled to “answer” to the witness for her verdict. The fact that a prospective juror would not feel compelled to answer to another person for their verdict does not necessarily mean that such prospective juror “can be fair” … . Indeed, a person could be unable to judge a case impartially while simultaneously being confident that he or she would not have to answer for the verdict to any other person. Thus, the prospective juror’s assurances that she would not feel compelled to answer to the witness for her verdict does not constitute the unequivocal assurance of impartiality required by law. People v Cobb, 2020 NY Slip Op 04055, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

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