You are here: / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER TOPPLED OVER, THERE...

Search Results

/

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER TOPPLED OVER, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE LADDER WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s (Loretta’s) motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly denied, and the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict. Apparently plaintiff alleged the A-frame latter toppled over when he was attempting to install a pipe. The facts of the case were not discussed, but there were questions of fact whether the ladder was an adequate safety device and, if not, whether the ladder was the proximate cause of the fall:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, as there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the ladder furnished to Loretta was adequate to protect him from the hazards arising from his work. The jury could have credited Loretta’s deposition and trial testimony that he did not remember if he was twisting the vertical pipe at the time of the accident, as well as the trial testimony of the plaintiff’s engineering expert that, if the ladder did not topple over as Loretta was twisting the vertical pipe, the expert’s opinion that the ladder was an inadequate safety device would be different, to rationally conclude that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of demonstrating that the ladder was an inadequate safety device. We also agree with the court’s determination to deny that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. A fair interpretation of the evidence could have led the jury to reach its verdict that the ladder was an adequate safety device. Accordingly, we agree with the court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) … . Loretta v Split Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00265, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

/ , ,

DEFAMATORY REMARKS MADE AT A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC MEETING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MEETING AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s defamation action properly survived a motion to dismiss. The defendant sought permission from the Village’s Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review to add an exterior stairway to her house. At the public meeting plaintiff, defendant’s neighbor, objected to the stairway. Then defendant made some remarks directly to plaintiff which, in essence, accused plaintiff of setting up a camera to view defendant’s daughter’s bedroom. The Second Department noted that statements at a public meeting before a municipal body are generally absolutely privileged. But here the statements had nothing to do with the substance of the meeting:

“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se” … .

“Absolute privilege is based upon the personal position or status of the speaker and is limited to the speaker’s official participation in the processes of government” … . “The absolute privilege generally is reserved for communications made by individuals participating in a public function, such as executive, legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This protection is designed to ensure that such persons’ own personal interests—especially fear of a civil action, whether successful or otherwise—do not have an adverse impact upon the discharge of their public function” … .

Here, as a threshold matter, the challenged statements, considered in the context in which they were made, tended to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace.

The challenged statements, which were made in the context of a contested application before a municipal body whose determination is subject to judicial review pursuant to CPLR article 78 …, would ordinarily be subject to absolute privilege… . Nevertheless, the absolute privilege embraces only those statements that may possibly be or become material or pertinent to the matters before the Board, construed under an extremely liberal standard… . Upon our review of the papers and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, we discern “not one scintilla of evidence present upon which to base the possible pertinency of [the] defendant’s statement[s]”… . Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the challenged statements are not subject to an absolute privilege … . Gugliotta v Wilson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00261, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

/ , , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PARKING LOT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ATHLETIC CLUB, NOT A LEASE, THEREFORE THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLICABLE, ALTHOUGH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE ATHLETIC CLUB TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING LOT, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPOSED CERTAIN MAINTENANCE DUTIES ON THE CITY AS WELL, THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city did not demonstrate that it had relinquished control over the parking lot where plaintiff allegedly fell into an access pit. The access pit was exposed because a snow removal contractor pushed the cover off when plowing snow. The city had a license agreement with an athletic club, Fitmar, which required Fitmar to maintain the parking lot. Fitmar had hired the snow removal contractor. The city argued it was an out of possession landlord and the parking lot was solely Fitmar’s responsibility. The Second Department held that the parking lot was subject to a license agreement, not a lease, and therefore the out of possession landlord doctrine did not apply. The Second Department went on to find that the terms of the license agreement did not demonstrate as a matter of law that the city had relinquished control over the maintenance of the parking lot:

… [T]he license agreement granted Fitmar a license to use the premises, and not a leasehold interest … . Thus, the standard applied to out-of-possession landlords is inapplicable here … . Rather, the City, “as landowner, remains in presumptive control over its property and subject to the attendant obligations of ownership until it is found that control was relinquished” … .

The City failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it relinquished control of the premises such that it owed no duty to the plaintiff to remedy the allegedly defective condition. While the license agreement assigned responsibility for maintenance of the premises, and specifically of the parking lot, to Fitmar, it vested the City with ultimate approval authority over Fitmar’s operating procedures. The City had unfettered access to the premises and could sponsor or promote its own special events at the premises. The agreement required a yearly inspection of the premises by the City to determine the extent of any repairs to be performed by Fitmar, and the City was permitted to inspect the premises at any time and direct Fitmar to undertake repairs. The City could maintain field personnel at the premises to observe the means and methods of anticipated construction work by Fitmar, and also reserved the right for the City to perform construction or maintenance work at the premises at any time. Fitmar’s former general manager testified at his deposition that the City conducted regular inspections of the premises, and that representatives of the Parks Department would often show up unannounced to conduct inspections. Agbosasa v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00250, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

/ , ,

INSURER SOUGHT A DECLARATION IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS FATAL ACCIDENT CASE, THE COURT ACCEPTED IN EVIDENCE A COPY OF THE POLICY WHICH DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined that the best evidence rule was violated when the court accepted a copy of the insurance policy. The plaintiff insurer (PLM) sought a declaration it was not obligated to defend the property owner in the action brought by a worker who fell through a skylight and was killed:

The copy of the policy admitted into evidence … did not specify a location for which the policy applied. Moreover, the copy of the policy admitted into evidence provided a different description of an endorsement titled “Exclusion- Designated Ongoing Operations” than a copy of the policy that PLM had produced during discovery. …

The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and are sought to be proven … . Under an exception to the rule, “secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” … . The proponent of the secondary evidence “has the heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court’s satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” … .

Here, PLM failed to offer any explanation as to the unavailability of the primary evidence, i.e., the original policy. PLM also did not establish that the copy of the policy proffered at trial was a “reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” … . Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00292, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INDICATED HIS FALL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER WAS NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE LADDER, PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE WHILE HOLDING A PIECE OF SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action against the homeowner (Recio) was properly dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he fell from the third rung of a six-foot A-frame ladder. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony demonstrated the ladder did not fail. Plaintiff simply lost his balance while holding a piece of sheetrock:

Recio demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which showed that the ladder from which the plaintiff fell was not defective or inadequate and that the ladder did not otherwise fail to provide protection. The evidence showed that the plaintiff fell because he lost his balance … . Pacheco v Recio, 2019 NY Slip Op 00291, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL ORDER AND GRANTED FATHER’S OBJECTIONS, FATHER’S ARGUMENT THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SPEND TIME AWAY FROM WORK TO LITIGATE THE MATTER DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IRREPARABLE HARM NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A REVIEW OF A NONFINAL ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that father’s objections to the support magistrate’s nonfinal order should have been denied and explained the relevant criteria:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439(e), “[s]pecific, written objections to a final order of a support magistrate may be filed by either party with the court within thirty days after receipt of the order.” “[O]bjections from nonfinal orders made by a Support Magistrate are typically not reviewed unless they could lead to irreparable harm” … . Here, the father’s claim that he would be forced to incur attorney fees and spend time away from work litigating a case that would ultimately be dismissed does not rise to the level of irreparable harm  … . Therefore, the Family Court should have denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s nonfinal order. Matter of Tobing v May, 2019 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

/ , ,

NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BROUGHT BY A STUDENT WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WHO LEFT SCHOOL AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence and negligent supervision, hiring, training and retention causes of action against the school district should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff is a special needs student who had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The infant plaintiff left school, went home and attempted suicide. The school district argued plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the IDEA. The Second Department held that the negligence causes of action were not subject to the administrative requirements of the IDEA:

“An IEP is developed jointly by a school official, the child’s teacher and parents, and, where appropriate, the child. It details the special needs of a disabled child and the services which are to be provided to serve the individual needs of that child” … . Because parents and school officials sometimes cannot agree on such issues, the IDEA establishes formal administrative procedures for resolving disputes… . If a parent is dissatisfied with the outcome after having exhausted the IDEA’s administrative remedies, the parent may then seek judicial review by filing a civil action in state or federal court… . The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is not limited to actions brought explicitly pursuant to the IDEA. 20 USC § 1415(l) states: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under this subchapter.”

Here, the complaint alleges only common-law causes of action to recover damages for, inter alia, negligence, negligent supervision, hiring, training, and retention, and loss of consortium. Thus, the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative remedies before commencing the instant action … . Matter of P.S. v Pleasantville Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00282, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

/ , ,

INSURANCE LAW STATUTE AND RELATED REGULATIONS WHICH PROHIBIT REAL PROPERTY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM PROVIDING SPORTS TICKETS, MEALS AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TO SOLICIT BUSINESS FROM THOSE WHO USE THEIR SERVICES ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that Insurance Law 6409 (d) was not ambiguous and the related regulations promulgated by the Department of Financial Services (DFS), with two exceptions, were valid. The statute and regulations deal with real property title insurance companies and prohibit the companies from soliciting business by providing sports tickets, meals and other entertainment to those who can use their services, including attorneys:

Following the investigation, DFS determined that some practices that resulted in higher premiums and closing costs for consumers, violate Insurance Law § 6409(d). DFS found that “insurers reported meal and entertainment expenses in the following categories: advertising, marketing and promotion, and travel, and other'” (Statement of Maria T. Vullo, Superintendent New York State DFS, Prepared for Delivery at Public Hearing: An Examination of Recent Title Insurance Regulation in New York, January 12, 2018) and expenses reported in the “other” category were “replete with excessive entertainment,” often including “wining and dining . . . of real estate professionals” (id.). For example, one insurer spent approximately $2.5 million to $5.4 million a year, amounting to about 5% to 14% of its charged premiums, on tickets to basketball, baseball, and tennis events for attorneys and other clients in a position to refer business to the insurer (id.). Some insurers paid for their clients to go to bars, strip clubs, and Hooters restaurants (id.). Insurers paid for “expensive designer goods” and “gift cards” for referral sources (id.). One insurer spent about 15% to 30% of premiums on entertainment and gifts for referral sources. Another insurer spent about 50% of its revenue on meals for referral sources. Insurers would report these expenses in the information submitted to DFS to support the premiums they charged (id.).

As a result of its investigation, DFS estimated that, on average, 5.3% of premiums charged statewide violated Insurance Law § 6409(d) from 2008 to 2012. To prevent such practices and to protect consumers from exorbitant costs, DFS promulgated Insurance Regulation 208. Matter of New York State Land Tit. Assn., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Fin. Servs.. 2019 NY Slip Op 00245, First Dept 1-15-19

 

/ , ,

CELL PHONE COMPANY WITNESS WAS NOT AN ENGINEER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT HOW FAR DEFENDANT’S PHONE WAS FROM THE TOWER, POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE MARSHALED THE EVIDENCE TO FAVOR THE PROSECUTION, THESE ERRORS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL ERRORS, CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, described a number of errors which had the cumulative effect of depriving defendant of a fair trial. Those errors include: (1) the witness from the cell phone company was not an engineer and therefore could not provide competent expert opinion about where defendant’s cell phone was in relation to the cell phone tower which picked up the signal; (2) a police officer should not have been allowed to testify that the victim had twice identified the defendant by name; (3) the charge to the jury improperly marshaled the identification evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution; (4) the court should have given the missing witness jury instruction for two lead detectives who had interviewed the victim and a witness; and (5) the judge should not have referenced the defendant’s failure to testify (twice). With respect to the cell tower and identification evidence, the court wrote:

“[T]estimony on how cell phone towers operate must be offered by an expert witness” because an analysis of the possible ranges of cell phone towers and how they operate is beyond a juror’s day-to-day experience and knowledge … . [The witness] was not an engineer and was not qualified, without an engineering background, to reach further conclusions about why defendant’s cell phone hit the Starling Avenue tower, i.e. whether it was because it was closest or strongest … . …

The trial court also permitted a police officer to testify twice, over defense objection, that the victim had identified her attacker as “male Hispanic, bald, by the name of Jose Ortiz.” This too was error. “Testimony by one witness (e.g., a police officer) to a previous identification of the defendant by another witness (e.g., a victim) is inadmissible” … . People v Ortiz, 2019 NY Slip Op 00221, First Dept 1-15-19

 

/ , ,

COURT ORDER WAS AMBIGUOUS AND ERRONEOUS AND COULD NOT THEREFORE BE THE BASIS OF A CONTEMPT FINDING AND SANCTIONS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a proceeding concerning the guardianship and trust assets of a disabled person, determined the trustee should not have been held in contempt based upon an ambiguous and erroneous court order and sanctions against the trustee were not justified in light of the ambiguity of and error in the order:

… [W]e find that, however uncooperative and dilatory the trustee was, [the court evaluator] did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the trustee violated a “lawful, clear and unequivocal order” when he did not pay the fee award from the unfunded, unexecuted 2006 SNT [supplemental needs trust] as directed in the ex parte order and when he instead cross-moved to vacate that order … . Moreover, given that the ex parte order referred to an incorrect SNT, which was not funded or executed, an error of which Supreme Court was made aware, the court should have granted the trustee’s motion to vacate the ex parte order … . …

A court may, in its discretion, award any party or counsel in a civil matter “costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable [counsel] fees, resulting from frivolous conduct” and “may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney” for frivolous conduct … . … However, such sanctions and costs may be imposed “only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate” … . …  [G]iven … the fact that the court orders were ambiguous or directed payment out of an incorrect, unfunded SNT, the trustee’s conduct in response to those orders, much of it based upon the advice of counsel, was not shown to be frivolous … . Matter of James H., 2019 NY Slip Op 00170, Second Dept 1-10-19

 

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