You are here: / PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) action against his employer (a demolition company) was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff fell when the roof of the building collapsed. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the owner of the building was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the collapse of the roof was foreseeable:

In order for liability to be imposed under Labor Law § 240(1), there must be “a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard . . . , as defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts'” … . In support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the partial collapse of the roof and, in turn, the need for safety devices to protect the plaintiff from that hazard, were foreseeable … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he was told that the roof collapsed because the beams from the third-floor ceiling had been cut constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Paguay v Cup of Tea, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06926, Second Dept 10-17-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION  (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, over an extensive dissent, determined that an adjudicated juvenile delinquent was not eligible for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS):

On the instant appeal, this Court is presented with the issue of whether the Family Court properly denied the renewed motion of Keanu S. (hereinafter the child) for the issuance of an order declaring that he is dependent on the Family Court and making specific findings so as to enable him to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J). Specifically, the Family Court rejected the child’s contention that he was dependent upon a juvenile court, within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i), by virtue of his placement in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York following his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent. … [W]e agree with the Family Court’s determination and conclude that such a placement does not satisfy the requirement of dependency under the statute. * * *

We hold that the child herein is not an intended beneficiary of the SIJS provisions. He was not placed in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services due to his status as an abused, neglected, or abandoned child. Instead, he was placed in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services after committing acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted serious crimes. His violent acts and misconduct have resulted in painful and terrible consequences to his victims. In fact, even while under probation, his encounters with the law persisted. In effect, the child attempts to utilize his wrongdoings and the resultant juvenile delinquency adjudication as a conduit or a vehicle to meet the dependency requirement for SIJS. Such a determination is in conflict with the primary intent of Congress in enacting the SIJS scheme, namely, to protect abused, neglected, and abandoned immigrant children. We cannot fathom that Congress envisioned, intended, or proposed that a child could satisfy this requirement by committing acts which, if committed by adults, would constitute crimes, so as to warrant a court’s involvement or the legal commitment to an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court. Matter of Keanu S., 2018 NY Slip Op 06918, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS)  ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))/JUVENILE DELINQUENT (FAMILY LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT))

/

IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a hearing on equitable estoppel in this paternity proceeding, determined that generic marker testing should not have been ordered without first resolving the equitable estoppel issue:

Family Court Act § 532 provides that, in a proceeding to establish paternity, “on the court’s own motion or the motion of any party, [the court] shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests” … . However, “no paternity test shall be ordered upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of, inter alia, equitable estoppel” … . “Where a party to a paternity proceeding raises an issue of equitable estoppel, that issue must be resolved before any biological testing is ordered” … .

Here, the Family Court should not have directed the petitioner and the child to submit to genetic marker testing before resolving the issue of equitable estoppel … . We remit the matter … for a hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel. If, and only if, the court determines that equitable estoppel should not be applied based upon the child’s best interests, then the court should direct genetic marker or DNA tests and reach a determination thereon … . Matter of George C.S. v Kerry-Ann B., 2018 NY Slip Op 06917, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))/PATERNITY (IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))/GENETIC MARKER TESTING (IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (FAMILY LAW, IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

CUSTODY MODIFICATION PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined that Family Court should not have granted mother's modification and violation petitions without holding a hearing:

Where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of orders relating to custody and visitation generally require a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard … . A decision regarding child custody and parental access should be based on admissible evidence … . Here, in making its determination, the Family Court relied solely on information provided at court conferences, and the hearsay statements and conclusions of the forensic evaluator, whose opinions and credibility were untested by either party … . The court should have conducted a hearing to ascertain the child's best interests before it modified the … Order … . Matter of Migliore v Santiago, 2018 NY Slip Op 06911, Second Dept 10-17-18

/ ,

INJURED POLICE OFFICER CAN RECEIVE BOTH WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a police officer injured trying to subdue and emotionally disturbed person can receive both Workers' Compensation and General Municipal Law 207-c benefits. The police chief denied the General Municipal Law 207-c benefits. Supreme Court annulled the police chief's denial holding that the police chief was estopped from denying the benefits because Workers' Compensation benefits had been awarded.  The Second Department found that the estoppel doctrine did not apply but affirmed on different grounds:

… [T]he Workers' Compensation Board's determination in favor of the petitioner did not collaterally estop the Incorporated Village of Muttontown and the Chief of Police (hereinafter together the appellants) from denying the petitioner's application for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. “[A] determination by the Workers' Compensation Board that an injury is work-related” does not, “by operation of collateral estoppel, automatically entitle an injured employee to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits” … . “General Municipal Law 207-c benefits apply to a narrower class of work-related injury, relative to the performance of law enforcement duties” … .

A determination denying an application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c may be annulled only if it was arbitrary and capricious … . “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” … .

In order to establish entitlement to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, a municipal employee must prove a “direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury”… . Here, the appellants' denial of the petitioner's application for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c was arbitrary and capricious. The documentation in the record established a causal connection between the performance of the petitioner's duties and her injuries. Matter of Lavin v Incorporated Vil. of Muttontown, 2018 NY Slip Op 06909, Second Dept 10-17-18

/

POWERS GRANTED TO THE GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT APPOINTED EVALUATOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly appointed a guardian for an incapacitated person, but should not have granted powers to the guardian over and above the powers recommended by the court-appointed evaluator:

Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(f) provides that “[i]f on or before the return date designated in the order to show cause the alleged incapacitated person or counsel for the alleged incapacitated person raises issues of fact regarding the need for an appointment under this article and demands a jury trial of such issues, the court shall order a trial by jury thereof.” Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(f) further states that “[f]ailure to make such a demand shall be deemed a waiver of the right to trial by jury.” …

Nevertheless, the judgment must be modified since the broad powers granted to the appointed guardian are inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the guardian be granted “only those powers which are necessary to provide for personal needs and/or property management of the incapacitated person in such a manner as appropriate to the individual and which shall constitute the least restrictive form of intervention” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[2]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.03[d]). Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court should have granted the guardian only those limited powers recommended in the report of the court-appointed evaluator. Matter of Heidi B. (Pasternak), 2018 NY Slip Op 06899, Second Dept 10-17-18

/ ,

DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation of settlement in this divorce action controlled, and a domestic relations order (DRO) which did not conform to the stipulation could not be enforced:

“A stipulation of settlement that has been incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation” … . “A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert or, under the guise of construction, add or excise terms, and it may not construe the language in such a way as would distort the apparent meaning” … . “A domestic relations order entered pursuant to a stipulation of settlement can convey only those rights to which the parties stipulated as a basis for the judgment'” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the formula set forth in her proposed DRO conflicts with the stipulation of settlement, which provided for a “fifty/fifty division of all pension benefits accumulated from the date of this marriage … through the date of service of the summons and complaint … ,” and that the plaintiff is “to be the recipient of 50 percent of any and all benefits payable to the [defendant] upon his retirement which were accumulated during that period of time” … . The stipulation of settlement made no reference to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481), nor can such a reference be implied from the unambiguous terms of the stipulation … . Since the stipulation is controlling, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to enter her proposed DRO … . McPhillips v McPhillips, 2018 NY Slip Op 06896, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (DRO)  (DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (DIVORCE, DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the MetLife was not vicariously liable for an alleged civil assault and battery by a private investigator, who was deemed to be a subcontractor, not an employee of MetLife:

” The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . ” The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration'” … . However, “[i]ncidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship” … .

Here, the contract between MetLife and Scope provided that Scope’s “affiliates and agents” were “solely personnel of [Scope] and not MetLife,” and that Scope would have “full responsibility for the actions and omissions of all personnel employed by [Scope] or any agents who are involved in performing the Services and for any losses arising therefrom.” The contract likewise contained a clause in which Scope agreed to indemnify MetLife for, inter alia, losses resulting from “negligent or wrongful acts.” Although, as the plaintiffs point out, a rider to the contract sets forth “Minimum Standards” for private investigators employed by Scope, “[t]he requirement that the work be done properly is a condition just as readily required of an independent contractor as of an employee and not conclusive as to either” … . McHale v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06895, Second Dept 10-17-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/SUBCONTRACTORS (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENCE, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))THIRD PARTY ASSAULT  (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly searched the record and granted defendant’s summary judgment in this action on a promissory note. The agreement at issue was an illegal contract involving a fee-splitting arrangement between physicians and non-physicians which is prohibited by the Education Law:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the causes of action to recover the balance due on the promissory note and for an award of costs and attorney’s fees, and, upon searching the record, to award the defendants summary judgment dismissing those causes of action. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the evidence submitted by the parties in connection with the motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that the agreement and the promissory note were a pretext for an unlawful fee-splitting arrangement in violation of the Education Law because they circumvented New York’s prohibition on physicians splitting fees with nonphysicians (see Education Law §§ 6509-a, 6530[19] … ). “It is the settled law of this State (and probably of every other State) that a party to an illegal contract cannot ask a court of law to help him [or her] carry out his [or her] illegal object, nor can such a person plead or prove in any court a case in which he [or she], as a basis for his [or her] claim, must show forth his [or her] illegal purpose” … . “Where the parties’ arrangement is illegal the law will not extend its aid to either of the parties . . . or listen to their complaints against each other, but will leave them where their own acts have placed them'” … . Linchitz Practice Mgt., Inc. v Daat Med. Mgt., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06891, Second Dept 10-17-18

CONTRACT LAW (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/PHYSICIANS (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/FEE-SPLITTING (PHYSICIANS, FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (PHYSICIANS, FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants demonstrated the storm in progress rule insulated them from liability in this snow and ice sidewalk slip and fall case because the slip and fall occurred less than four hours after the precipitation stopped. The motion to renew was properly denied because the newly submitted evidence did not call into question the applicability of the four-hour rule:

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-123(a), which requires building owners to clear ice and snow from an abutting sidewalk within four hours after the snow ceases to fall, excluding the hours between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., they had no duty to clear the sidewalk until 10:20 a.m., which was several hours after the plaintiff’s accident. The plaintiff moved, in effect, for leave to renew and reargue her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In support of that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew, the plaintiff submitted the deposition testimony of a former employee of the defendants who witnessed the accident. The plaintiff argued that she was unable to present this evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment because the defendants deliberately delayed disclosing the identity of the witness until just before they made that motion. …

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]) and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion”… . Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The newly submitted evidence would not have changed the prior determination … . The new facts relied on, consisting of the deposition testimony of the defendants’ former employee, did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had a duty to clear the sidewalk prior to the plaintiff’s accident or whether they created or exacerbated a dangerous condition by engaging in negligent snow removal efforts. Ghoneim v Vision Enters. Mgt., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06884. Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/STORM IN PROGRESS RULE  (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW, SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2221 (MOTION TO RENEW, SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (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