You are here: / PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1),...

Search Results

/

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the general contractor (Sweeney) on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action in this falling object case, even if plaintiff was not supposed to be in the area when he was struck (comparative negligence is inapplicable). Plaintiff was also entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims against the subcontractor (Structure Tech) whose employee caused the object to fall. There was a question of fact whether the Structure Tech employee was instructed by Sweeney to cut the object which fell, which would make Sweeney liable for the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action as well:

Plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against Sweeney because there was no overhead protection provided to plaintiff … . Thus even if, as Structure Tech’s superintendent testified, plaintiff was in an area of the worksite where he was not supposed to be at the time of his accident, this would at most constitute comparative negligence which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . …

Plaintiff also should have been awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Structure Tech. As a subcontractor and, therefore, the statutory agent of the general contractor, Structure Tech may be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and under common-law negligence for injuries caused by a dangerous condition that it caused or created or of which it had actual or constructive notice … . Since no party disputes that a Structure Tech employee was responsible for dislodging the baluster and allowing it to fall and strike plaintiff, Structure Tech is liable to plaintiff under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

However, an issue of fact exists as to Sweeney’s liability to plaintiff under these claims based on the testimony of Structure Tech’s superintendent that it was, in fact, Sweeney’s superintendent who instructed Structure Tech to cut the baluster that ultimately struck plaintiff. If credited, this testimony could support a finding that Sweeney actually exercised supervisory control over the worksite so as to trigger liability under these claims … . Hewitt v NY 70th St. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03280, First Dept 6-11-20

 

/ , , , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PROPER BURDEN OF PROOF EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this asbestos -injury case should not have been granted and, alternatively, even if the motion were properly granted, leave to renew should have been granted based on additional evidence:

In connection with a motion for summary judgment in an action based on exposure to asbestos, defendant has the initial burden of showing “unequivocally” that its product could not have contributed to the causation of decedent’s asbestos-related injury … .

Defendant Burnham failed to sustain its initial burden of demonstrating that its products could not have contributed to decedent’s mesothelioma. Decedent’s testimony identified defendant as the manufacturer of greenhouses in which he worked and cited three possible sources of asbestos: transite benches in the greenhouses, window glazing and the greenhouse boiler. Burnham provided no evidence demonstrating that its products could not have been the source of the asbestos that caused decedent’s illness. It only pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof, which was insufficient to meet its burden … . Even if the burden had shifted, plaintiffs’ evidence in opposition raised an issue of fact as to whether Burnham had sold, distributed, and recommended asbestos-containing products such as those used in plaintiffs’ family’s gardening business. While hearsay, that evidence could be considered by the court since it was not the sole basis of the opposition … .

Alternatively, even if the summary judgment motion had been properly granted, the court should have granted leave to renew in the interests of fairness and justice since plaintiffs presented an affidavit of decedent’s estranged brother, which supplied crucial evidence linking decedent’s illness to Burnham’s products. Fischer v American Biltrite, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03277, First Dept 6-11-20

 

/ ,

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION BASED UPON ALLEGEDLY ADULTERATED FUEL OIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE NUMEROSITY REQUIREMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND LEAVE TO RENEW WAS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for class certification should have been denied because the proof of the numerosity prerequisite was not in admissible form. The dismissal was without prejudice because it appeared the evidence could be properly presented:

The gravamen of plaintiffs’ claim, and that for which they seek class certification, is that defendant provided them and others similarly situated “with inferior, adulterated heating oil, i.e. that the fuel oil that was delivered to them contained oils of lesser value mixed into the ordered grade of fuel oil, so that the delivered product did not meet the standards of the parties’ contracts” … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, this is the predominant question of law and fact in this case, and it is common among the class. In any event, “the fact that questions peculiar to each individual may remain after resolution of the common questions is not fatal to the class action” … . Moreover, “CPLR article 9 affords the trial court considerable flexibility in overseeing a class action,” and the court could even “decertify the class at any time before a decision on the merits if it becomes apparent that class treatment is inappropriate” … . Supreme Court is more than able to recognize if its class certification becomes unduly cumbersome, and, if so, how best to fashion a remedy.

Nevertheless, “[t]he proponent of class certification bears the burden of establishing the criteria promulgated by CPLR 901(a) and must do so by tender of evidence in admissible form” … . Here, plaintiffs failed to submit admissible evidence demonstrating that the numerosity prerequisite to class certification was satisfied. However, the record suggests that such evidence is in plaintiffs’ possession but simply was not submitted in connection with their motion. Accordingly, plaintiffs are given leave to renew their motion for class certification, upon admissible evidence providing a sufficient basis for determining the size of the potential class. Mid Is. LP v Hess Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03270, First Dept 6-11-20

 

/ , , ,

ACCOUNTING CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PROPER WAY TO HANDLE A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS TO MOVE TO VACATE AND THEN APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this shareholders’ derivative action against a low-income Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC), determined: (1) although a sua sponte order is not appealable, the appeal of the dismissal of the cause of action for an accounting is heard in the interest of justice; (2) the proper way to handle a sua sponte order is to move to vacate it and then appeal; (3) there was no need to amend the complaint because the accounting cause of action included the right to damages for wrongdoing (here the alleged failure to account for the sale of an apartment for $90,000):

An order issued sua sponte is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] …). Plaintiffs’ remedy is to move to vacate the court’s order, and, if the motion is denied, appeal from that order (CPLR 5701[a][3] …). …

… [W]e find that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint because the cause of action for an equitable accounting was not moot. Supreme Court conflated the first cause of action for the inspection of the HDFC’s books and records with the second cause of action for an equitable accounting … . Defendants failed to demonstrate what happened to the $90,000 from the sale of Apartment 6A, and the funds do not appear in the HDFC’s financials. Defendants’ affidavits did not address this glaring deficiency.

… An equitable accounting involves a remedy “designed to require a person in possession of financial records to produce them, demonstrate how money was expended and return pilfered funds in his or her possession” … . Available relief includes a personal judgment against the wrongdoer … . Hall v Louis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03268, First Dept 6-11-20

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ALLOWED THE SELLER TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT IF SELLER COULD NOT CONVEY TITLE, THAT PROVISION REQUIRES THE SELLER TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SELLER FALSELY CLAIMED TO BE THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHEN IN FACT SHE OWNED 50%; THE SELLER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint seeking specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement should not have been granted. Although the contract allowed the seller to refund the down payment and cancel the contract if the seller is unable to convey title, the seller must do so only in good faith and only if the buyers reject the defective title. Here the complaint alleged the seller fraudulently claimed she was the sole owner of the property, when in fact she owned only 50%:

“Where, as here, a contract for the sale of real property provides that in the event the seller is unable to convey title in accordance with the terms of the contract, the seller may refund the buyer’s down payment and cancel the contract without incurring further liability, that limitation contemplates the existence of a situation beyond the parties’ control and implicitly requires the seller to act in good faith'” … . Contrary to the Surrogate’s Court’s determination, the … complaint set forth cognizable causes of action sounding in breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment, among other things, upon allegations that the seller wilfully failed to supply good and marketable title and rescinded the contract of sale even though the buyer and the appellants did not reject the defective title … . Matter of Valderrama, 2020 NY Slip Op 03236, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A FATHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND OR PETITIONER’S ACQUIESCENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A RELATIONSHIP; THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S PETITION FOR A DECLARATION OF PATERNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should not have been invoked to dismiss the petition for a declaration petitioner is the father of a child born in 2016. Mother did not deny petitioner was the father but claimed the child had developed a father-child relationship with her husband, Joseph T. The Second Department held that the evidence did not demonstrate a father-child relationship with Joseph T and did not demonstrate petitioner acquiesced in the creation of a father-child relationship with Joseph T:

The doctrine of equitable estoppel may “preclude a man who claims to be a child’s biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man” … . ” The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship'” … , and has been applied “[i]n situations where an individual has assumed the role of a father and where the petitioner putative father has neglected to assume such a role” … . …

We agree with the petitioner that the respondents failed to demonstrate the existence of an operative parent-child relationship between the child and Joseph T. The only evidence of such a relationship came from the child’s foster mother, with whom he has lived since he was one year old. The foster mother testified that the child called Joseph T. “daddy” during weekly supervised visits, and that they were affectionate with each other at the visits … . … Joseph T. never appeared in court on the petition and did not testify at the hearing. Further, we disagree with the Family Court that the petitioner acquiesced in the establishment of a relationship between the child and Joseph T. The petitioner testified at the hearing that, until the child was removed from the mother’s care, he did not know she married to Joseph T. Matter of Luis V. v Laisha P. T., 2020 NY Slip Op 03235, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ , ,

THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO CARE FOR BURNS ON THE CHILD’S LEGS WERE GROSSLY INADEQUATE, THOSE MEASURES DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING DEFENDANT DID NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s assault and reckless endangerment convictions, over a dissent, determined the depraved-indifference element of the charges was not supported by the weight of the evidence. The defendant’s 20-month-old foster child had second and third degree burns on his legs. Mother consistently explained she heard screaming coming from the bathroom where she saw the child trying to get out of the tub and the child’s three-year-old sister standing outside the tub as the tub was filling up with hot water. The People tried to prove, through an expert (Yurt), that the child had been held in hot water. But there were inconsistencies in the expert’s testimony. Defendant explained that she was afraid to take the child to the hospital and instead tried to treat the burns after talking to a pharmacist and going on line:

The inconsistencies in Yurt’s [the People’s expert’s] testimony undermined the People’s already tenuous theory that the defendant affirmatively caused the burns. …

Accordingly, to establish the “depraved indifference” element of the subject offenses, we are left with the defendant’s failure to obtain proper medical care for the child. This case is thus squarely controlled by Lewie and Matos. As in those cases, while the evidence in this case shows that the defendant “cared much too little about [the] child’s safety, it cannot support a finding that she did not care at all” (People v Lewie, 17 NY3d at 359; see People v Matos, 19 NY3d at 476). Like the defendant in Matos, the defendant in the present case took measures, “albeit woefully inadequate” ones, to care for the child, by inquiring about proper burn care at a pharmacy, purchasing ointments and bandages, and keeping the burns covered. Those measures are commensurate with the measures taken by the defendant in Matos who reacted to a beating that caused her child severe internal bleeding and multiple broken bones by making a homemade splint for her son’s leg and giving him ibuprofen (see id. at 476). People v Verneus, 2020 NY Slip Op 03256, Second Dept 6-10-2o

 

/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION, BROUGHT AFTER CONVICTION BY A JURY, WAS UNTIMELY AND NOT WARRANTED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an appeal by the People, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal mischief count in the interest of justice, after conviction by a jury, should not have been granted. The motion was untimely and not warranted on the merits:

The People argue on appeal, as they did in opposition to the defendant’s motion, that the motion was untimely and therefore should have been denied on that basis. We agree. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have denied the branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPL 210.40(1), as he failed to show good cause for seeking that relief more than 45 days after his arraignment … .

In any event, we are not persuaded that the interest of justice was served by the dismissal of the criminal mischief in the third degree count of the indictment in this case. “The power to dismiss an indictment in furtherance of justice is to be exercised sparingly, in those cases where there is some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment . . . would constitute or result in injustice'” … . In this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in substituting its own judgment concerning the credibility of the trial witnesses and the culpability of the defendant for that of the jury … . Additionally, “[t]here is nothing in the record before us that marks the prosecution of this defendant as extraordinary or one which cries out for justice beyond the confines of conventional considerations” … . Accordingly, we reinstate the count of criminal mischief in the third degree, and remit the matter for sentencing. People v Pfail, 2020 NY Slip Op 03252, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT MISCHARACTERIZED THE SCOPE OF THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BY NOT CLARIFYING THAT CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES REMAIN APPEALABLE DESPITE THE WAIVER; WAIVER INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court mischaracterized the scope of the waiver of appeal rendering the waiver invalid:

… [T]he court mischaracterized the effect of the waiver on the defendant’s right to appeal. In this regard, the court, after describing the function of an appellate court, concluded its explanation of the waiver by stating: “What all this means, though, is that this plea and the sentence I am going to impose are final and that higher court will not have a chance to review it.”

“The improper description of the scope of the appellate rights relinquished by the waiver is refuted by . . . precedent, whereby a defendant retains the right to appellate review of very selective fundamental issues, including the voluntariness of the plea and appeal waiver, legality of the sentence and the jurisdiction of the court” … . Accordingly, it was incorrect for the Supreme Court to convey to the defendant that an appellate court would have no authority to review the plea or the sentence under any circumstances.

Furthermore, the record in this case does not include any “clarifying language” indicating that “appellate review remained available for certain issues” or that “the right to take an appeal was retained” … . Although the People cite to a written waiver that was apparently signed by the defendant, the Supreme Court “failed to confirm that [the defendant] understood the contents of the written waiver[ ]” … . In any event, the written waiver does not indicate that appellate review remained for certain limited issues, but rather, merely stated that “[the] sentence and conviction will be final” … . People v Christopher B., 2020 NY Slip Op 03242, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LEASE DID NOT OBLIGATE THE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE AREA AND NO STATUTORY VIOLATION WAS ALLEGED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff allegedly slipped on ice which formed from a leak in a pipe in a walk-in freezer. The lease did not require the landlord to maintain the freezer. No statutory violation was alleged:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . Here, where the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the plaintiff does not allege the violation of a statute, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they were an out-of-possession landlord that was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair the allegedly dangerous condition … . The lease in this case specified that the “Landlord’s Obligations do not include the performance nor the payment of the costs for . . . the maintenance, repair and/or replacement of Freezer System or the replacement of the Refrigeration System at any time.” Mallet v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03220, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

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