You are here: / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER...

Search Results

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY CONDITIONS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) ladder-fall action was properly denied as against the alleged genera contractor, Edler. There was a question of fact whether Edler was a general contractor and whether Edler had the authority to supervise safety conditions:

To be found a “general contractor” for purposes of establishing liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), plaintiffs must show that Edler had the ability to control the activity bringing about the injury and the authority to correct unsafe conditions … . Here, plaintiffs failed to establish, as a matter of law, that Edler had the ability to control [plaintiff’s employer’s] work at the premises or stop the work. The record reflects that although Edler was hired to “supervise” the project, Edler did not hire, retain or pay any of the contractors working at the premises … . Moreover, the homeowner testified that he “assume[d]” that Edler had safety responsibilities and that it was his understanding that Edler had the authority to stop work on the job site if an unsafe condition arose. However, Edler’s principal denies that he had the authority to stop the work at the premises, and the agreement between Edler and the homeowner does not specifically confer upon Edler the authority to stop the work if an unsafe condition was observed … . Rather, it provides that part of Edler’s “site supervision” responsibilities included supervising “day to day operations” of the site and trade. An issue of fact remains as to whether this includes supervision of the safety conditions. Uzeyiroglu v Edler Estate Care Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03285, First Dept 4-30-19

 

/ , ,

REPORT OF FIRE MARSHAL, WHO HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE, WAS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could not defeat a summary judgment motion by raising a new theory of liability in the opposing papers:

The report established that the fire marshal conducted an investigation at the subject premises and concluded that the fire in defendants’ building was caused by combustible clothing left in a dryer for too long, rather than any defect in the premises or dryer … . Although the fire marshal did not have an independent recollection of his investigation, his report was admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, and was sufficient to satisfy defendants’ prima facie burden, since it noted that he independently inspected the premises and concluded that the accident was not due to defendants’ negligence … .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her expert failed to address the theories of liability raised in the complaint and bill of particulars and failed to rebut defendants’ showing. Instead, plaintiff’s expert raised a new theory, namely that plaintiff’s injuries from smoke inhalation were caused by the absence of a self-closing door in the laundry room where the fire occurred, which caused smoke to permeate into plaintiff’s apartment. A plaintiff cannot defeat a summary judgment motion by asserting a new theory of liability for the first time in opposition papers … . Mirdita v Musovic Realty Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03284, First Dept 4-30-19

 

/ , ,

PURSUANT TO MILITARY LAW, PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED HER NYC POLICE-OFFICER PROBATIONARY PERIOD BY VIRTUE OF HER DEPLOYMENT ON MILITARY DUTY DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Military Law controlled and petitioner, a probationary NYC police officer, must be deemed to have satisfactorily completed her probation by virtue of her military deployment while on probationary status:

Under New York City personnel rules, “[s]ubject to the provisions of the [M]ilitary [L]aw,” the computation of a probationary period is based on time the employee is “on the job in a pay status” (55 RCNY 5.2.2[b]). The personnel rules further provide that, notwithstanding rule 5.2.2, the probationary period will be extended while a probationer “does not perform the duties of the position” (55 RCNY 5.2.8[b]) for instance, while on limited duty status … . These rules are expressly subject to Military Law § 243(9), which provides, in pertinent part, that if a probationary employee is deployed on military duty before the expiration of his or her probationary period, “the time [she] is absent on military duty shall be credited as satisfactory service during such probationary period.”

Military Law § 243(9) is unambiguous in providing that respondents are required to credit the period that probationary officers spend in military service as “satisfactory service” towards completion of the probationary period. The statute does not distinguish between probationers on restricted or modified duty and those on full duty status at the time of deployment, or give respondents discretion to distinguish between types of probationers … . Matter of Aroca v Bratton, 2019 NY Slip Op 03277, First Dept 4-30-19

​

/ ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO APPEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined low office failure was a legitimate excuse for failing to serve an answer. Defendant had made a pre-answer motion to dismiss, thereby demonstrating defendant did not intend to abandon the action:

Defendants satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3012(d), which authorizes an extension of time to appear or plead “upon such terms as may be just and upon a showing of reasonable excuse for delay or default.” Here, the delay in filing an answer was occasioned by law office failure, which can constitute a reasonable excuse … . Defendants’ counsel explained that its failure to file its answer was due to an error in its office’s case management system, which, upon the entry of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, marked the complaint answered. Notably, service of the pre-answer motion to dismiss revealed that defendants did not intend to abandon the action. Plaintiff does not argue that it has been prejudiced as a result of defendants’ three month delay in submitting its answer … , and our determination comports with New York’s strong public policy in favor of litigating matters on the merits … . Hertz Vehicles, LLC v Mollo, 2019 NY Slip Op 03270, First Dept 4-30-19

 

/ ,

THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS AND THEREFORE LACKED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff failed to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure proceedings:

Plaintiff cannot establish that the note was assigned to it by a written assignment prior to commencement of foreclosure proceedings. Therefore, it must “adequately prove[] that it did, indeed, have possession of the note prior to commencement of this action” … , and where an affiant’s knowledge is based on unidentified and unproduced records, “the affidavit lacks any probative value” and cannot be the basis for an award of summary judgment … . Since plaintiff has failed to establish that it had physical possession of the note prior to commencement of this action, we reverse the motion court’s award of summary judgment to plaintiff. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v Gould, 2019 NY Slip Op 03266, First Dept 4-30-19​

 

/ ,

POLICE BODY-WORN-CAMERA FOOTAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERSONNEL RECORD AND IS NOT THEREFORE PROTECTED FROM RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-a (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined police officers’ body-worn-camera footage did not constitute a personnel record within the meaning of Civil Rights Law 50-a. Therefore the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y.’s petition for a preliminary injunction prohibiting release of the footage was properly denied:

We find that given its nature and use, the body-worn-camera footage at issue is not a personnel record covered by the confidentiality and disclosure requirements of § 50-a … . The purpose of body-worn-camera footage is for use in the service of other key objectives of the program, such as transparency, accountability, and public trust-building.

Although the body-worn-camera program was designed, in part, for performance evaluation purposes, and supervisors are required, at times, to review such footage for the purpose of evaluating performance, the footage being released here is not primarily generated for, nor used in connection with, any pending disciplinary charges or promotional processes. New York Civil Liberties Union v New York City Police Department (__NY3d__, 2018 NY Slip Op 8423 [2018]), which involved disciplinary matters, does not constrain this analysis. The footage, here, rather, is more akin to arrest or stop reports, and not records primarily generated for disciplinary and promotional purposes. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the body-worn-camera program to promote increased transparency and public accountability. Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y. v De Blasio, 2019 NY Slip Op 03265, First Dept, 4-30-19

 

/ ,

POLICE EFFECTIVELY SEIZED DEFENDANT BY BLOCKING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH TWO POLICE CARS, BECAUSE THE SEIZURE TOOK PLACE IN THE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE SUSPICION A PARTICULAR PERSON WAS INVOLVED IN A CRIME THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and suppressing the tangible evidence, determined the police effectively seized defendant by blocking in defendant’s vehicle with two police cars without sufficient cause:

The conviction arises from a police encounter during which an officer approached the parked vehicle in which defendant was a passenger and observed that defendant was in possession of a handgun. We agree with defendant that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the initial seizure of the vehicle, and thus Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress both the tangible property seized, i.e., the weapon, and statements defendant made to the police at the time of his arrest. Here, police officers effectively seized the vehicle in which defendant was riding when their two patrol cars entered the parking lot in such a manner as to prevent the vehicle from being driven away … . The police had, at most, a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” which permitted them to approach the vehicle and make a common-law inquiry of its occupants. They did not, however, have “reasonable suspicion that [a] particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” to justify the seizure that occurred here …, and thus the weapon and defendant’s statements should have been suppressed. People v Suttles, 2019 NY Slip Op 03158, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

/

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE NO REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE POLICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s weapons possession and sale convictions because the state Attorney General did not have the authority to prosecute the case. The Attorney General’s authority to prosecute a criminal case is triggered when a request is made by the head of an appropriate agency, here the Superintendent of the State Police. No such request was in the stipulated record on appeal:

It is well settled that the Attorney General lacks general prosecutorial authority and has the power to prosecute only where specifically permitted by statute … . As relevant here, Executive Law § 63 (3) grants the Attorney General prosecutorial authority “[u]pon request of . . . the head of any . . . department, authority, division, or agency of the state” (emphasis added). Although the People assert that the Attorney General had authority to prosecute this matter under section 63 (3) based on a request made by the State Police, such a request would confer that authority only if made by the head of the division, i.e., the Superintendent of State Police … . Moreover, “the State bears the burden of showing that the [division or] agency head has asked for the prosecutorial participation of the Attorney General’s office” … . People v Wassell, 2019 NY Slip Op 03187, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

/

COUNTY COURT COULD NOT LEGALLY FULFILL THE SENTENCING PROMISE THAT INDUCED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA, PLEA VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s guilty plea was induced by a sentencing promise County Court could not fulfill. The plea was vacated and the matter was remitted for imposition of a sentence that comports with defendant’s expectations:

Penal Law § 70.30 (3) provides that “the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence imposed on a person shall be credited with and diminished by the amount of time the person spent in custody prior to the commencement of such sentence as a result of the charge that culminated in the sentence.” Penal Law § 70.30 (3) further provides that “[i]n the case of an indeterminate sentence, if the minimum period of imprisonment has been fixed by the court . . . , the credit shall also be applied against the minimum period.” That credit, however, “shall not include any time that is credited against the term . . . of any previously imposed sentence . . . to which the person is subject” … . Thus, “a person is prohibited from receiving jail time credit against a subsequent sentence when such credit has already been applied to time served on a previous sentence’ ” … . Inasmuch as defendant was serving a sentence on a prior conviction throughout the instant proceedings, the court could not legally fulfill its promise to credit defendant’s jail time against his sentence in this matter.

It is well established that “[a] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … . “Where, as here, the originally promised sentence cannot be imposed in strict compliance with the plea agreement, the sentencing court may impose another lawful sentence that comports with the defendant’s legitimate expectations” … . People v Mccullen, 2019 NY Slip Op 03180, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

/ , ,

FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JURORS COULD NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THEY COULD PUT ASIDE THEIR RESERVATIONS AND BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A NEW TRIAL AND BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER ISSUES NOT RULED UPON BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE TRIAL COURT WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER TWO EVIDENTIARY ISSUES, ONE RAISED BY THE PEOPLE, AND ONE RAISED BY THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because for cause challenges to two jurors were denied. Neither juror gave unequivocal assurances that she could be fair and impartial, in fact one juror expressly said she would continue to think defendant was involved based solely on his presence in the courtroom. In the interest of judicial economy, because there will be a new trial, the Fourth Department indicated the court erred in finding defendant’s cell phone was lawfully seized from defendant’s vehicle incident to arrest to protect evidence in defendant’s grabbable area from destruction or concealment. The Fourth Department noted it could not consider the People’s argument the cell phone was lawfully seized pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because Supreme Court didn’t rule on that issue. The Fourth Department directed Supreme Court to make a ruling. The Fourth Department further directed Supreme Court to rule on whether an unavailable witness’s hearsay statement should be admitted pursuant to defendant’s rights to put on a defense and due process. Defendant had raised that issue but Supreme Court did not rule on it. With respect to the for cause juror challenges, the court wrote:

“It is well settled that a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the [prospective] juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial’ “… . Although CPL 270.20 (1) (b) “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or talismanic’ words . . . , [a prospective] juror[] must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent [him or her] from reaching an impartial verdict” … . People v Clark, 2019 NY Slip Op 03231, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

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