You are here: / FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR...

Search Results

/

FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon plaintiff’s fall when he stepped on a pile of loose pipes was properly dismissed. However the Labor Law 200 cause of action and the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action against some of the defendants should not have been dismissed:

The court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, as that statute does not cover a fall allegedly caused by stepping on a pile of unsecured pipes on the floor of a construction site … . …

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should not be dismissed as against UA, Independent Mechanical, Intel Plumbing, and WeWork. The cause of plaintiff’s accident was not the manner in which his work was performed but a dangerous condition on the premises, i.e., the loose pipes that had been laid on the floor directly in front of a doorway … . …

… [T]he record does not support the summary dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as against the UA and 401 Park defendants. Plaintiff’s testimony that his fall was caused by a pile of loose pipes obstructing the doorway presents an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a tripping hazard in a passageway (Industrial Code [12 NYCRR] § 23-1.7[e][1] … ). There is also an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), since part of the floor where workers worked or passed was not kept free from scattered tools or materials … . In addition, there is an issue of fact as to whether the unsecured pipes, which were allegedly piled about two feet high directly in front of the doorway, were safely stored pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) … . Armental v 401 Park Ave. S. Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-2-20

 

/

CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW; HER APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Worker’s Compensation Board, determined claimant’s application for Board review should not have been rejected based upon claimant’s answer to question 15 which asks for the the specific ruling objected to:

Claimant filed her application for Board review … and question number 15 on the form RB-89 application and the accompanying instructions directed her to “[s]pecify the objection or exception interposed to the [WCLJ’s] ruling and when it was interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii)” … . Claimant responded by stating that “an exception was noted at the hearing on [January 11, 2018],” that the WCLJ had noted that exception in his decision and that the “objection [was] continued by way of” the application for Board review. The Board found that this response was deficient because it failed to identify the exception. This finding overlooked the information already provided in the application for Board review, however, as claimant made clear in her responses to question numbers 11 and 12 that the challenged ruling was the finding of “no compensable disability” from May 10, 2017 to November 27, 2017 and that the issue was whether the WCLJ had erred in crediting certain medical testimony to make that ruling. Claimant identified the ruling at issue in those responses and, by citing the “exception” continued in her “application for review,” her response to question number 15 unambiguously referred to the ruling named in her prior responses so as to provide the information required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii) and demanded by the form instructions … . Matter of Narine v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 02142, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT MAINTENANCE AND THE LADDER DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM A FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Markou’s) motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was troubleshooting a problem with lighting when his ladder slid sideways. He jumped off the ladder and landed on his feet to avoid hitting his head on the ground. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case that he was engaged in a protected activity (repair rather than routine maintenance) and the ladder did not provide adequate protection:

… [W]e find that plaintiffs established that Markou was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), in that he was attempting to repair the overhead lighting system in the cold storage area of defendant’s premises … . …  Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion, the court correctly concluded that plaintiffs, through the deposition testimony and sworn affidavit of their expert, sustained their prima facie burden of showing that the ladder was not “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to Markou (Labor Law § 240 [1]), causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Markou v Sano-Rubin Constr. Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02144, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

/ ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE SECURITY-COMPANY CONTRACT AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF DETRIMENTALLY RELIED UPON A SECURITY GUARD’S PROMISE TO RESPOND TO HER CALL FOR HELP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant security company’s (Sera’s) motion for summary judgment in this patient-assault case was properly denied. Plaintiff, a nurse at a healthcare facility, was assaulted by a patient. Sera argued it was only responsible for providing protection against intruders, not patients. Because the contract with Sera was ambiguous the court properly considered extrinsic evidence (deposition testimony) which indicated Sera responded to staff’s calls for help dealing with patient “altercations” or “fighting.” There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the Sera’s contract with the facility and whether plaintiff detrimentally relied on Sera to protect her from the assault. Questions of fact about Sera’s duty to plaintiff and the foreseeability of the assault were raised:

Given [the] testimony and the contractual language, the motion court properly denied summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant is liable to plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the contract.

Similarly, the motion court also properly concluded that plaintiff raised questions of fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment as to whether Sera is liable to plaintiff under a theory of detrimental reliance based on plaintiff’s allegation that the Sera security guard promised to respond to plaintiff’s call for assistance, but failed to do so in a timely manner or failed to call the police promptly or at all (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140). Defendant’s security guard testified that he could not recall when he received the call from his colleague directing him to go to the floor where plaintiff worked, whether he was advised of any details of what was occurring, or how long it took him to get there. He further testified that he was trained to investigate calls prior to determining whether to call the police, and that, if a staff member called the security station about an incident, it was the Sera security guards’ responsibility to call 911 or the police when warranted. Kuti v Sera Sec. Servs., 2020 NY Slip Op 02153, First Dept 4-2-20

 

/ , ,

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION MONTHS BEFORE HE PLED GUILTY, HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR PRECLUDED APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge concurrence, determined defendant’s argument that the trial judge failed to inform him of the deportation consequences of his plea to a felony was subject to the preservation requirement. The defendant’s failure to preserve the error precluded appeal:

“[D]ue process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony” … . However, before we may consider whether a trial court fulfilled that obligation, we must determine whether a defendant preserved the claim as a matter of law for our review or whether an exception to the preservation doctrine applies … . Here, service on defendant, in open court and months before the plea proceedings, of a “Notice of Immigration Consequences” form provided him with a reasonable opportunity to object to the plea court’s failure to advise him of the potential deportation consequences of his plea, making the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine unavailable to him … . * * *

“Generally, in order to preserve a claim that a guilty plea is invalid, a defendant must move to withdraw the plea on the same grounds subsequently alleged on appeal or else file a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10” (Peque, 22 NY3d at 182). While reiterating this rule in Peque, we also acknowledged that “where a defendant has no practical ability to object to an error in a plea allocution which is clear from the face of the record, preservation is not required” (id.). This exception to the preservation requirement, however, remains narrow … . * * *

The very first sentence of the Notice explicitly told defendant that “a plea of guilty to any offense” could “subject[] [him] to a risk that adverse consequences w[ould] be imposed on [him] by the United States immigration authorities, including, but not limited to, removal from the United States . . . .” It further noted that, among other things, a conviction for “burglary . . . or any other theft-related offense . . . for which a sentence of one year or more is imposed” would be deportable.

Those unambiguous statements provided defendant with sufficient notice of possible immigration consequences, including deportation, of his conviction, giving him “a reasonable opportunity” to express concerns to the court — during either his plea or at sentencing — regarding those consequences … . People v Delorbe, 2020 NY Slip Op 02126, CtApp 3-31-20

 

/

JUDICIARY LAW 487 APPLIES ONLY TO MISREPRESENTATIONS BY AN ATTORNEY WHICH ARE MADE IN THE COURSE OF A LAWSUIT; THE STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE, AS HERE, THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE TO INDUCE PLAINTIFFS TO START A MERITLESS LAWSUIT TO GENERATE A LEGAL FEE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the Judiciary Law 487 cause of action, based upon the allegation plaintiffs’ attorneys (defendants) deceitfully induced plaintiffs to bring a meritless lawsuit in order to generate a legal fee, was properly dismissed. A Judiciary Law 487 cause of action lies only if misrepresentations are made in the course of litigation, as opposed to, as here, before litigation is commenced:

Here … defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Judiciary Law § 487 (1) claim by demonstrating that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants engaged in deceit or collusion during the course of the underlying federal intellectual property lawsuit … . In response, plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden to establish material, triable issues of fact … . The affidavits plaintiffs submitted in opposition to summary judgment did not allege that defendants committed any acts of deceit or collusion during the pendency of the underlying federal lawsuit. To the extent defendants were alleged to have made deceitful statements, plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants induced them to file a meritless lawsuit based on misleading legal advice preceding commencement of the lawsuit is not meaningfully distinguishable from the conduct we deemed insufficient to state a viable attorney deceit claim in Looff (97 NY at 482). The statute does not encompass the filing of a pleading or brief containing nonmeritorious legal arguments, as such statements cannot support a claim under the statute … . Similarly, even assuming it constituted deceit or collusion, defendants’ alleged months-long delay in informing plaintiffs that their federal lawsuit had been dismissed occurred after the litigation had ended and therefore falls outside the scope of Judiciary Law § 487 (1). Thus, plaintiffs’ Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action was properly dismissed. Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 02125, CtApp 3-31-20

 

/ ,

A FRYE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE LOW COPY NUMBER (LCN) DNA EVIDENCE AND THE EFFICACY OF A FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a three-judge concurrence, ruled a Frye hearing should have been held to the determine admissibility of low copy number (LCN) DNA evidence and the efficacy of the forensic statistical tool (FST) used to conduct the statistical analysis. The abuse of discretion was deemed harmless however:

At the time this motion practice was initiated no court had completed a Frye hearing with respect to the FST, and only one court—namely, the Megnath (27 Misc 3d 405) court …—had conducted such a hearing with respect to LCN testing.  * * *

… [T]here was “marked conflict” with respect to the reliability of LCN DNA within the relevant scientific community at the time the LCN issue was litigated in this case … . * * *

… FST is a proprietary program exclusively developed and controlled by [the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME)]. The sole developer and the sole user are the same. That is not “an appropriate substitute for the thoughtful exchange of ideas . . . envisioned by Frye” … . It is an invitation to bias. People v Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 02123, CtApp 3-31-20

Similar issues and result in People v Foster-Bey, 2020 NY Slip Op 02124, CtApp 3-31-20

 

/ ,

NEW JERSEY CONVICTION FOR LEWDNESS, ALTHOUGH NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE IN NEW JERSEY, IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD; IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE CONDUCT UNDERLYING THE FOREIGN OFFENSE IN ADDITION TO THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE; 30 POINT ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE NEW JERSEY CONVICTION WAS CORRECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a concurrence and a two-judge dissent, determined defendant was properly assessed 30 points based upon his prior New Jersey conviction for lewdness. The New Jersey offense, based upon defendant’s repeatedly exposing himself to the 12-year-old victim,  was deemed the equivalent of New York’s endangering the welfare of a child:

At the SORA court hearing, defendant challenged the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 9, asserting that his New Jersey lewdness conviction was neither a registrable offense in New Jersey nor did the comparable offense under New York law—public lewdness (a misdemeanor)—subject defendant to SORA registration in New York … . * * *

At the outset, we must resolve whether reliance on the underlying conduct of a prior foreign conviction is appropriate as a matter of law for purposes of assessing points under risk factor 9 when conducting a SORA risk-level determination. Under these circumstances, we hold that it is. * * *

Our analysis of the New Jersey conviction starts with North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of New York, wherein we considered whether the defendant was required to register as a sex offender as a result of his federal conviction for possession of child pornography (8 NY3d 745 [2007]). That question turned on the “essential elements” provision in SORA, which defines “sex offense,” in relevant part, as “a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any [registrable sex offense in New York listed in section 168-a (2) of the Correction Law]” … . We concluded that, with respect to registrable offenses, the “essential elements” provision “requires registration whenever an individual is convicted of criminal conduct in a foreign jurisdiction that, if committed in New York, would have amounted to a registrable New York offense” … . …

In the SORA registration context … we [have held] that the strict equivalency standard was “not the optimal vehicle to effectuate SORA’s remedial purposes” and it was thus appropriate to utilize a more flexible approach that allowed consideration of the underlying conduct of a foreign conviction in addition to comparing the essential elements of the foreign and New York offense … . People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 02096, CtApp 3-26-20

 

/

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DEPARTED FROM ITS PRECEDENT WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION, MATTER REMANDED TO THE BOARD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, remanding the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Court could not rule on the appeal because the Board did not place on the record its reasons for departing from its own precedent. Claimant retired after she was injured and the Board held that she did not have to demonstrate efforts to get work in order to obtain benefits:

… [T]he Board now maintains that it departed from its administrative precedent by applying a discretionary inference in favor of claimant as permitted by Matter of Zamora v New York Neurologic Assoc. (19 NY3d 186 [2012]), without first requiring claimant to present evidence of her efforts to obtain work or get retrained. All parties agree that pursuant to Zamora the Board may, but need not, infer from the fact that a claimant involuntarily retired due to claimant’s permanent partial disability that the claimant’s reduced post-accident earnings resulted from that disability … . All parties also agree that once initially so classified, a claimant entitled under Workers’ Compensation Law (“WCL”) § 15 (3) (w) to compensation for the disability-related loss of wage-earning capacity need not demonstrate ongoing efforts to work or retrain for work after classification under the 2017 amendment to that provision. Given the parties’ agreement on the applicable law, and the Board’s representation that it departed from its purported precedent without explanation, we reverse and remit so that the Board may clarify its rationale and issue a decision in accordance with Zamora, which should include an explanation if it chooses to depart from an evidentiary requirement imposed on similarly situated claimants in prior proceedings. Matter of O’Donnell v Erie County, 2020 NY Slip Op 02095, CtApp 3-26-20

 

/

CLAIMANT, A COURIER, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the Appellate Division, over a concurrence and a two-judge dissent, determined the claimant courier was an employee of Postmates and was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits:

Postmates is a delivery business that uses a website and smartphone application to dispatch couriers to pick-up and deliver goods from local restaurants and stores to customers in cities across the United States—deliveries that are, for the most part, completed within an hour. Postmates solicits and hires its couriers, who undergo background checks before being approved to work by Postmates. Once they are approved, the couriers decide when to log into the application and which delivery jobs to accept. Once a courier accepts a delivery job made available through the application, the courier receives additional information about the job from Postmates, including the destination for the delivery. After completing a job, Postmates pays the couriers 80% of the delivery fees charged to customers, and payments are made by the customer directly to Postmates, which pays its couriers even when the fees are not collected from customers. Couriers’ pay and the delivery fee are both nonnegotiable. * * *

Postmates exercises more than “incidental control” over its couriers—low-paid workers performing unskilled labor who possess limited discretion over how to do their jobs. That the couriers retain some independence to choose their work schedule and delivery route does not mean that they have actual control over their work or the service Postmates provides its customers; indeed, there is substantial evidence for the Board’s conclusion that Postmates dominates the significant aspects of its couriers’ work by dictating to which customers they can deliver, where to deliver the requested items, effectively limiting the time frame for delivery and controlling all aspects of pricing and payment. Matter of Vega (Postmates Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 02094, CtApp 3-26-20

 

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