You are here: / PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY IS WORKERS’...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GRAVELY INJURED AND THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT WITH HIS EMPLOYER TO CONTRIBUTE, INDEMNIFY OR INSURE; THE EMPLOYER’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured while acting within the scope of his employment. Workers’ Compensation, therefore, was his exclusive remedy unless he was gravely injured or there was agreement with the employer:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 prohibits third-party claims for contribution or indemnification against an employer unless the employee has sustained a “grave injury” or there is a written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution to or indemnification of the third-party claimant … .

Here, in support of its motion, A.B.C. Tank established, prima facie, that there was no written agreement between the parties that required it to contribute, indemnify, or procure insurance … . Further, A.B.C. Tank established, prima facie, that the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and that the plaintiff’s injuries did not constitute a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 … . McIntosh v Ronit Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01485, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

/ ,

THE BANK’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT NOT FORMALLY, DISMISSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED ITS INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE BUT THE MOTION TO RESTORE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank should have been allowed to restore a 2009 foreclosure action which had been administratively, but not formally, dismissed. The court noted that the bank’s prior statement of its intention to discontinue the 2009 action did not trigger the judicial estoppel doctrine:

While, in an effort to successfully prosecute the 2015 foreclosure action, the Bank represented that it would seek to discontinue the 2009 action, it is not judicially estopped from changing its position. ” [A] party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed'” … . The Bank did not obtain a favorable judgment in the 2015 foreclosure action.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Bank’s motion which was to restore the 2009 action to the active calendar. The 2009 action was never formally dismissed, as the marking-off procedures of CPLR 3404 do not apply to pre-note of issue actions such as this one … . Since the 2009 action could not properly be marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404, the Bank was not required to move to restore within any specified time frame and was not obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious claim … . Further, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 … , nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 … . Finally, [defendant] does not contend that the 2009 action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gambino, 2020 NY Slip Op 01476, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF LEAVES ON THE STAIRWAY; THE CONDITION WAS NOT BOTH “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AND “NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IN DESCENDING THE STAIRWAY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the verdict in this slip and fall case was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff descended a stairway which had leaves on it:

The plaintiff’s testimony sufficiently identified the condition that caused her to fall … . The evidence at trial failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the condition at issue was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . …

A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . Here, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the plaintiff was negligent in choosing to descend the stairway despite the presence of leaves, but that her negligence merely furnished the occasion for the accident … . Accordingly, the jury’s determination that the plaintiff’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the accident was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Brennan v Gormley, 2020 NY Slip Op 01473, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

/ ,

RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMS RENDERED THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE POLICY VOID AB INITIO (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the arbitrator’s award, determined the no-fault policy was void because respondent failed to attend independent medical examinations:

The master arbitrator’s award was arbitrary in that it irrationally ignored well-established precedent that “the no-fault policy issued by petitioner was void ab initio due to respondent’s assignor’s failure to attend duly scheduled independent medical exams” … . Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Capital Chiropractic, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 01466, First Dept 3-3-20

 

/ ,

THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THE POLICY COVERED A PREMISES AT WHICH THE INSURED DID NOT RESIDE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the language of the policy was not ambiguous and could not be interpreted to mean the policy covered a premises at which the insured did not reside:

Plaintiff demonstrated, via defendant’s admission in a statement to its investigator and the investigator’s inspection of the insured premises, that defendant did not reside at the premises and was therefore not covered by the policy … .

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the policy endorsement that amends the definition of “residence premises” — previously, “[t]he one-family dwelling … where you reside” — to include three- and four-family dwellings without repeating the phrase “where you reside” is not ambiguous. The endorsement also states that “[a]ll other provisions of this policy apply,” which gives effect to those portions of the policy that define “residence premises” as the place “where [the insured] reside[s]” … . MIC Gen. Ins. Corp. v Campbell, 2020 NY Slip Op 01465, First Dept 3-3-20

 

/ , ,

A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO ITS MEMBERS OR SHAREHOLDERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the complaint, noted that the breach-of-a-fiduciary-duty action was brought solely against the corporation, which does not owe its members or shareholders a fiduciary duty:

“[I]t is well settled that a corporation does not owe fiduciary duties to its members or shareholders” … . Here, while the complaint alleges that defendant’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiff in refusing to approve the sale of certain units in the cooperative market to plaintiff, plaintiff brought this action solely against the cooperative corporation and thus, the complaint is dismissed. C & J Bros., Inc. v Hunts Point Term. Produce Coop. Assn., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01454, First Dept 3-3-20

 

/ , ,

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING THE SALE OF PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS TO DEFENDANT ARE PRIVILEGED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined communications between plaintiffs’ financial advisor (KDC) and plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the sale of plaintiffs’ company to defendant were privileged:

It is true that KDC was not retained to assist plaintiffs’ counsel in providing legal advice. However, the unrebutted evidence reflects that KDC spent some portion of its time helping counsel to understand various aspects of the transaction for that purpose. As such, KDC’s presence was necessary to enable attorney-client communication … .

Plaintiffs also had a reasonable expectation that the confidentiality of communications between their counsel and KDC would be maintained. Plaintiffs’ counsel attested that KDC promised to keep all such communications confidential. The governing Purchase and Sale Agreement also specified that all privileged documents related to the transaction would remain protected from disclosure to defendant even after closing … .

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the Cooperation Clause in KDC’s engagement letter did not undermine the reasonableness of this expectation of confidentiality, as it only required “reasonabl[e]” assistance to the Company (now owned by defendant), and should thus not be read to require KDC to turn over privileged documents … . Spicer v GardaWorld Consulting (UK) Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 01448, First Dept 3-3-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO REPAIR SHOWER-CURTAIN BRACKETS CREATED THE DANGEROUS WATER-ON-THE-FLOOR CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE SLIP AND FALL; AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN STILL BE A DANGEROUS CONDITION; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this wet-bathroom-floor slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the landlord failed to repair brackets for the shower curtain. The fact that the water on the floor was an open and obvious condition relieved landlord of the duty to warn, but not the duty to keep the property safe:

Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on the basis that plaintiff failed to identify the condition of water on the floor before he slipped and fell. Supreme Court incorrectly found that any conclusion that plaintiff slipped and fell because of water accumulation would be based on speculation. Plaintiff argues correctly that, even if in his deposition testimony he did not explicitly state that he noticed water on the floor before he stepped out of the shower, a jury could reasonably infer that he slipped and fell on water on the floor due to the absence of a shower curtain … . Defendants’ proof failed to negate this reasonable inference … .

“[E]ven if a hazard qualifies as open and obvious’ as a matter of law, that characteristic merely eliminates the property owner’s duty to warn of the hazard, but does not eliminate the broader duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition” … .

… Defendants argue that the broken brackets were not an inherently dangerous condition but rather a benign condition. However, as plaintiff correctly observes, the purpose of the shower brackets was to hold up the shower curtain, and the purpose of a shower curtain is to prevent the accumulation of water when the shower is in use. Matos v Azure Holdings II, L.P., 2020 NY Slip Op 01441, First Dept 3-3-20

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND PROPERLY ALLEGED A CIVIL CONSPIRACY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs had, inter alia, stated a cause of action for fraud and properly alleged a related civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs are owners of commercial buildings and defendants included an employee of one of the plaintiffs and several contractors who did work for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged invoices for work were inflated and the excess payments were split among defendants. With respect to the fraud and civil conspiracy causes of action, the First Department wrote:

To state a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and damages” … . Such a claim must be pleaded with particularity (CPLR 3016[b] …). “[A]ctual knowledge[, however,] need only be pleaded generally, [given], particularly at the prediscovery stage, that a plaintiff lacks access to the very discovery materials which would illuminate a defendant’s state of mind” … . …

Here, we find that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded fraud causes of action with the information available to them in a pre-discovery posture … . They alleged the creation and presentation for payment to plaintiffs of false, forged or inflated purchase orders; that defendants “knew that the work described on the bogus purchase orders or invoices and other contract forms was either falsely stated, overcharged or not provided, and knew that Plaintiffs would rely on these falsified or doctored purchase orders to make unwarranted payments”; that plaintiffs “relied on these purchase orders, invoices and other contract forms in making unnecessary payments to . . . defendants” to their detriment; that such reliance was “justifiable” and “reasonable”; and that plaintiffs were damaged as a result of defendants’ fraud. After discovery, plaintiffs can amplify their pleadings and defendants can renew their motions. But at this stage, plaintiffs should be allowed to probe defendants’ knowledge of the alleged fraudulent scheme. …

Although New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for civil conspiracy, allegations of civil conspiracy are permitted “to connect the actions of separate defendants with an otherwise actionable tort” … . To establish a claim of civil conspiracy, the plaintiff must demonstrate the primary tort, plus the following four elements: an agreement between two or more parties; an overt act in furtherance of the agreement; the parties’ intentional participation in the furtherance of a plan or purpose; and resulting damage or injury … . Plaintiffs pleaded the underlying fraud against defendants …, as well as an agreement that “[d]efendants acted in concert and conspired to defraud [p]laintiffs’ business.” As a result, plaintiffs were damaged because they paid monies to the defendants “for non-existent, unnecessary, and/or overpriced construction and maintenance services.” Cohen Bros. Realty Corp. v Mapes, 2020 NY Slip Op 01440, First Dept 3-3-20

 

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