You are here: / INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING...

Search Results

/ ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, found that the misbehavior determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner was charged with attempting to mail gang related information. But there was no evidence connecting petitioner to the relevant documents:

… [T]he documentary evidence attached to the misbehavior report and submitted to this Court for in camera review consisted solely of three typewritten pages, which did not have any features or content that could identify petitioner as the author or sender, and did not include the envelope in which the pages were allegedly discovered … . The testimony given by the investigating correction officer, together with the statements that he made in the misbehavior report, established only that the three typewritten pages were forwarded to him from the mail room as mail that petitioner had attempted to send. The investigating correction officer did not testify to having any personal knowledge that petitioner was the sender of those pages. A mail room supervisor testified that, although she was aware that petitioner was the subject of a mail watch at one time, she could not recall the actual incident, and she did not offer any testimony that linked petitioner to the pages at issue… . Further, petitioner did not admit ownership of the documents or otherwise connect himself to them … . To the contrary, petitioner maintained his innocence throughout the administrative proceeding and asserted that he was being retaliated against for having lodged grievances against the mail room staff. In the absence of evidence connecting petitioner to the three typewritten pages, the underlying determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Telesford v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 07397, Third Dept 11-1-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONNECTING THE INMATE TO THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING GANG RELATED INFORMATION, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT))

/

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE FALLING FROM AN UNSAFE MAKESHIFT PLATFORM MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in his Labor Law 240 (1) action result from a fall from an unsafe makeshift platform made by the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged the lift with which he was provided could not be used and no other safety equipment was provided:

Defendant is a property owner subject to the statute and he provided no equipment to plaintiff aside from agreeing to rent a lift for plaintiff’s use. Plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was installing siding above a staircase running along the side of the building. He averred that the lift would not fit in the area, he was not provided with a traditional scaffold and he could not have used a “ladder jack” scaffold in the area due to both the equipment being in use elsewhere and the location of the staircase. Plaintiff accordingly fashioned a work platform from his A-frame ladder and a scaffolding plank known as a pick, running the pick between a rung of the ladder and the top landing of the staircase. The pick and ladder were not anchored to the ground or the wall, and plaintiff gave deposition testimony stating that he fell several feet when the contraption slid out from beneath him as he was pushing the new siding into place. An engineer retained by plaintiff opined that the unsecured makeshift platform was unsafe and that defendant violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to furnish adequate safety equipment, such as a proper scaffold and a safety harness, that would have shielded plaintiff from injury. The foregoing was sufficient to “establish[] a prima facie showing of a statutory violation which was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, [shifting the burden] to defendant to submit evidentiary facts which would raise a factual issue on liability” … . …

Defendant responded by arguing that inconsistencies in plaintiff’s account over time raised a material question of fact as to how the accident occurred. * * * [The] variations did not suggest “that plaintiff’s fall and injuries were caused by anything other than the unsecured [pick and] ladder or that plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident[.]” Cooper v Delliveneri, 2018 NY Slip Op 07396, Third Dept 11-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE FALLING FROM AN UNSAFE MAKESHIFT PLATFORM MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF (THIRD DEPT))

/

THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT), ​

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined that the phrase “within five days” in a change of venue statute (CPLR 511) did not impose a five day waiting period:

Asserting that Ulster County was an improper venue for the proceeding, the Steeles served a timely written demand that the proceeding be tried in Oswego County (see CPLR 511 [b]). Four days later, the Steeles moved, in Ulster County, to change venue of the proceeding to Oswego County. The Aarons argue that the Steeles, by failing to wait five days after their demand to allow the Aarons an opportunity to provide a written consent to change venue, failed to comply with the statutory procedure and thereby were not entitled to a change of venue as of right. This argument is based on an interpretation that the language “unless within five days” places a hold on the defendant’s obligation to make a motion, during which time the defendant must simply wait for the plaintiff to respond to the demand (CPLR 511 [b]). We disagree with that interpretation of the statute.

The Aarons’ argument appears to focus exclusively on the phrase “unless within five days.” However, a plaintiff can choose not to respond to the demand, so the defendant may be sitting and waiting for nothing. In our view, the five-day window is a time limit on the plaintiff only, and the defendant is not required to refrain from doing anything during that period. Instead, the limits placed on a defendant under CPLR 511 (b) — other than the 15-day limit to move for change of venue — are contingent on whatever response the plaintiff may provide, rather than a five-day time period. While the five days are a limit on the plaintiff’s ability to respond to the demand, the defendant retains the ability to make the venue motion “unless . . . [the] plaintiff serves a written consent” agreeing to the venue selected by the defendant (CPLR 511 [b]). In other words, the important occurrence for the defendant is the plaintiff granting consent, not the passage of days. If the plaintiff consents to the demanded change in venue, the defendant may not move for such relief. In a situation where the defendant made a motion before the end of the plaintiff’s five-day response window and the plaintiff thereafter consented, the defendant would have to withdraw the motion (which would be unnecessary at that point anyway). Matter of Aaron v Steele, 2018 NY Slip Op 07393, Third Dept 11-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 511 (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))

/

STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK A PASSAGEWAY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE STACKING OF THE SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Labor Law 240 (1), 246 )1) and 200 causes of action were properly dismissed. The sheetrock which allegedly fell and struck plaintiff’s ankle was not an elevation-related hazard, did not block a passageway, and the defendants had not unloaded or stacked the sheetrock and did not exercise sufficient supervisory control to be liable in negligence:

The mere fact that a plaintiff was struck by an object that fell does not, by itself, give rise to liability under the statute … . Rather, a plaintiff must establish that “the object fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … . That said, “where a plaintiff was exposed to the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1), the plaintiff cannot recover under the statute” … . …

The record indicates … that the sheetrock was stacked on its long side on the ground before it fell and that plaintiff was on the same level as the sheetrock. …

Regarding plaintiff’s cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), it was incumbent upon plaintiff to show that defendants violated an Industrial Code provision that imposed a specific standard of conduct … . Plaintiff failed in that regard. The record discloses that the sheetrock was stored in the corner of a second-floor room and did not “obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” … .

Turning to plaintiff’s remaining claims, “Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty imposed upon . . . general contractors to maintain a safe work site” … . Where the injury stemmed from the methods and means in which a subcontractor performed its work, “there must be a showing of supervisory control and actual or constructive notice of the unsafe manner of performance” … . “Where a subcontractor creates a condition on the premises that results in an unreasonable risk of harm and that condition is a proximate cause of a worker’s injuries, then common-law negligence may be implicated” … . Wiley v Marjam Supply Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07381, Third Dept 11-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK A PASSAGEWAY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE STACKING OF THE SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined the respondent NYS Public Service Commission did not exceed its rule-making authority when it imposed a moratorium on energy service companies’ (ESCOs’) enrollments and renewals of customers who participate in utility low-income assistance programs (APPs):

Whether agency rulemaking infringes upon the Legislature’s policy-making powers is governed by the “four coalescing circumstances” set forth in Boreali v Axelrod (71 NY2d 1 [1987]): “whether (1) the regulatory agency balanced costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines, or instead made value judgments entailing difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals to resolve social problems; (2) the agency merely filled in details of a broad policy or if it wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance; (3) the [L]egislature had unsuccessfully attempted to enact laws pertaining to the issue; and (4) the agency used special technical expertise in the applicable field” … . …

This Court recently observed that respondent had the statutory authority to require that, in all new and renewal contracts between an ESCO and a residential customer or small nonresidential customer, the ESCO must guarantee “savings in comparison to what the customer would have paid as a full service utility customer or provide at least 30% renewable electricity” … . Citing respondent’s “broad” statutory authority “to set just and reasonable tariff rates for gas and electric corporations pursuant to Public Service Law articles 1 and 4” and that the same discretion allowed respondent to open the state’s energy markets to ESCOs in the first instance, we observed that respondent may “impose limitations on ESCO rates as a condition to continued access” … . The moratorium at issue on this appeal is directly responsive to concerns that ESCOs were costing customers, particularly APPs, more money than if they had just used a utility, a result in direct conflict with the original purpose of opening the energy markets to ESCOs … . ​Matter of National Energy Marketers Assn. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 07378, Third Dept 11-1-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTILITIES, NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT))/NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT))/UTILITIES (LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE, NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT))/LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE (UTILITIES, NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, considering the validity of the plea in the interest of justice because the error was not preserved, determined there was no showing defendant understood the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty:

Defendant’s contention on appeal, however, is unpreserved for our review because, although defendant made a postplea motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see CPL 220.60 [3]), his motion was not premised upon the grounds now asserted — to wit, County Court’s alleged failure to adequately inform him of the constitutional rights that he was forfeiting by pleading guilty …  We nonetheless exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action and reverse the judgment (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]…).

“When a defendant opts to plead guilty, he [or she] must waive certain constitutional rights — the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to a jury trial and to be confronted by witnesses”… . “While there is no mandatory catechism required of a pleading defendant, there must be an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant waived his or her constitutional rights” … . During the plea proceedings, County Court engaged in an abbreviated colloquy during which it made only a passing reference to certain rights that defendant was forfeiting by pleading guilty. Although defendant was advised of his right to a jury trial, the court did not mention the privilege against self-incrimination or the right to be confronted by witnesses… . The court also failed to establish adequately that defendant had consulted with his counsel specifically about his relinquishment of trial-related rights or the consequences of his guilty plea, “instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel” …  about “the indictment, . . . the drug charge, and anything else that [was] important to [him]” … . With no affirmative showing on the record before us that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights at the time he entered his guilty plea, the plea was invalid and must be vacated … . People v Simon, 2018 NY Slip Op 07370, Third Dept 11-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO SHOWING DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING BY ENTERING THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Defendant Lucia Wager made a left turn into plaintiff’s path in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1141. The unsourced statement in the medical record concerning plaintiff’s speed was not related to his diagnosis or treatment and should not have been admitted:

… [T]he plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that Lucia Wager violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 when she made a left turn directly into the path of the injured plaintiff’s motorcycle. Lucia Wager was negligent in failing to see what was there to be seen, and in attempting to make a left turn when it was hazardous to do so … . Regardless of who entered the intersection first, the injured plaintiff, as the driver with the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that Lucia Wager would obey traffic laws which required her to yield … . In opposition, the defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Lucia Wager had a nonnegligent explanation for colliding with the injured plaintiff’s motorcycle  … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the statement contained in the injured plaintiff’s medical record as to how fast his motorcycle was traveling at the time of the collision was not admissible as an admission, since the source of the information was not identified and it did not contain information that was germane to his diagnosis or treatment … . Ming-Fai Jon v Wager, 2018 NY Slip Op 07304, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS ( DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (INTERSECTION ACCIDENT, DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL RECORDS, DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL RECORDS (NEGLIGENCE, STATEMENTS , DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))/ADMISSIONS (NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL RECORDS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant general contractor’s motion to dismiss the complaint brought by plaintiff subcontractor, based upon the subcontractor’s failure to allege it was licensed to do home improvement work, should have been granted:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3015(e), a complaint that seeks to recover damages for breach of a home improvement contract or to recover in quantum meruit for home improvement services is subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) if it does not allege compliance with the licensing requirement” … . Moreover, a home improvement contractor who fails to possess and plead possession of a valid license as required by relevant laws may not commence an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien … .

Here, the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff was duly licensed in the Town of East Hampton at the time the services were rendered … . Moreover, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff did not dispute that it did not possess the necessary license. The plaintiff’s contention that the work it performed was not for home improvement but, rather, was for the construction of a new home for which a home improvement contracting license was not necessary, is without merit. The Town Code defines “home improvement” as including, inter alia, “[n]ew home construction” … . Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants are entitled to the protection of CPLR 3015(e) and the applicable licensing requirements … . Kristeel, Inc. v Seaview Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07296, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3015 (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS (PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LIEN LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MECHANIC’S LIENS (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LICENSES, HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LICENSES  (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant town did not demonstrate the hump over which plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell was open and obvious. Therefore the town’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The Town had installed a drain to keep water off this particular ballfield and covered the drain with asphalt, creating a hump. This hump extended to the area between the players’ benches and the entrance to the ballfield on the third base side. The injured plaintiff was attempting to move through the entrance on the third base side when he tripped and fell over the hump. …

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition … . There is, however, no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property so as to give rise to liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of [his or her] senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … .

Here, the Town failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition of the hump was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident … . In support of the motion, the Town submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the testimony of the injured plaintiff at his hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and at his deposition. The injured plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, the hump was completely covered with dirt and sand and players were standing around it, thus obscuring his view of the hump. Since the Town failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, the burden never shifted to the plaintiffs to submit evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact … . Dillon v Town of Smithtown, 2018 NY Slip Op 07289, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department determined a stipulation of settlement entered by plaintiff’s attorney was a binding contract. The fact that plaintiff changed her mind before the stipulation was filed was of no consequence. Plaintiff made no effort to demonstrate the contract was invalid due to duress, fraud, mistake or overreaching:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance. CPLR 2104 provides that, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” Here, there is no dispute that on October 30, 2015, the plaintiff’s former counsel had actual authority from his client to enter into the stipulation discontinuing the action on her behalf … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the stipulation of discontinuance clearly evidenced the plaintiff’s intent to discontinue the action as of October 30, 2015, notwithstanding that she changed her mind prior to the filing of the stipulation on November 2, 2015 … , even though it did not effect a discontinuance until it was filed with the clerk of the court on November 2, 2015 (CPLR 3217[a][2]). In seeking to vacate the stipulation, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden to establish good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as that the stipulation was the result of duress, fraud, mistake, or overreaching, or that the terms of the stipulation were unconscionable … . Demetriou v Wolfer, 2018 NY Slip Op 07288, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2103, CPLR 3217 (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT)

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