You are here: / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE...

Search Results

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have relieved mother’s attorney as counsel and entered a default judgment on mother’s failure to appear. Mother was not notified of her attorney’s intent to withdraw and, therefore, Family Court should not have entered an order on mother’s default. Because the order should not have been entered, an appeal, rather than a motion to vacate the default, was the proper remedy:

Generally, no appeal lies from an order made upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511…). Rather, the proper procedure is to move to vacate the default and, if necessary, appeal from any denial of that motion (see CPLR 5015[a][1]…). Here, however, there was no proper order entered upon default. An attorney of record may withdraw as counsel only upon sufficient cause and upon notice to the client (see CPLR 321[b][2]…). Indeed, a purported withdrawal without proof of proper notice to the client is ineffective …, and a court may not enter a default order in the absence of a proper withdrawal … . There is no indication on the record that the mother’s attorney informed her that he was seeking to withdraw as counsel. Accordingly, the Family Court should not have relieved the mother’s attorney as counsel or entered an order on the mother’s default… . Inasmuch as no order was properly entered upon default, the mother’s appeal is not precluded … . Matter of Menghi v Trotta-Menghi, 2018 NY Slip Op 04324, Second Dept 6-13-18

​FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEYS, DEFAULT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, DEFAULT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (ATTORNEYS, DEFAULT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT (ATTORNEYS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEALS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5511  FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 321 (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED MOTHER’S COUNSEL WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, BECAUSE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED, APPEAL WAS THE PROPER REMEDY (SECOND DEPT))

/

SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly refuse to admit a surveillance video because it was not properly authenticated:

“Testimony from [a] videographer that he [or she] took the video, that it correctly reflects what he [or she] saw, and that it has not been altered or edited is normally sufficient to authenticate a videotape” … . Where the videographer is not called as a witness, the video can still be authenticated with testimony that the video “truly and accurately represents what was before the camera”… . Furthermore, “[e]vidence establishing the chain of custody of the videotape may additionally buttress its authenticity and integrity, and even allow for acceptable inferences of reasonable accuracy and freedom from tampering” … . Here, given the inability of the witness to testify regarding the editing of the master recording and the accuracy of the video excerpt, and his lack of personal knowledge as to the creation of the proffered disc and how it came into the possession of the plaintiff’s attorneys, we agree with the court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to properly authenticate the video excerpt … . Torres v Hickman, 2018 NY Slip Op 04372, Second Dept 6-13-18

​EVIDENCE (VIDEO, SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT))/AUTHENTICATION (EVIDENCE, SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT))/VIDEO (EVIDENCE, AUTHENTICATION, SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT))/AUTHENTICATION (EVIDENCE, SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant-school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case was properly denied. And plaintiffs’ motion for an adverse or negative inference jury instruction based on the school district’s destruction of video surveillance evidence was properly granted. Infant plaintiff, a fifth grader, fell from the top of a set of monkey bars while attempting a dangerous cartwheel to a handstand. Apparently he successfully did the stunt just before and fell on his second attempt. The school was aware that infant plaintiff needed some extra supervision because of his past actions. The school preserved only the video of the failed second attempt of the stunt and nothing prior:

… [T]here are triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff’s alleged prior conduct and his reputation warranted more appropriate supervision, or heightened supervision, and, if so, whether such supervision would have prevented the accident … . The evidence submitted in support of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment did not establish, prima facie, that the accident occurred in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it… . Additionally, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not an applicable defense to the facts herein … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs demonstrated that the defendant had an obligation to preserve surveillance footage of the moments leading up to the infant plaintiff’s accident at the time of its destruction, but negligently failed to do so. Given the nature of the infant plaintiff’s injuries and the immediate documentation and investigation into the cause of the accident by the defendant’s employees, the defendant was clearly on notice of possible litigation and, thus, under an obligation to preserve any evidence that might be needed for future litigation … . The defendant failed to meet this obligation. The defendant acted negligently in unilaterally deciding to preserve only 24 seconds of footage and passively permitting the destruction of the remaining footage, portions of which were undisputedly relevant to the plaintiffs’ case. SM v Plainedge Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 04370, Second Dept 6-13-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

ABSENCE OF A TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied because the errata sheets attached to the deposition were not accompanied by a translator’s affidavit. The defendant testified through a Spanish language interpreter:

… [T]he defendant testified at her deposition through a Spanish language interpreter. However, the errata sheets annexed to the transcript of the defendant’s deposition testimony and the defendant’s affidavit, which were both written in English, were not accompanied by a translator’s affidavit executed in compliance with CPLR 2101(b). Therefore, those evidentiary submissions were facially defective and inadmissible … . While the defendant submitted a translator’s affidavit with her reply papers, that affidavit was unnotarized, and thus was not in admissible form … . The defendant’s remaining evidentiary submissions were insufficient to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the applicability of the homeowner’s exemption under the Labor Law …  . Gonzalez v Abreu, 2018 NY Slip Op 04309, Second Dept 6-13-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ABSENCE OF A TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2101 (ABSENCE OF A TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT (ABSENCE OF A TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

/

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction should have been granted. Plaintiff used the affix and mail procedure and did not demonstrate that diligent efforts were made to serve by other means:

Affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) is only valid where service under CPLR 308(1) by personal delivery or CPLR 308(2) by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion “cannot be made with due diligence” … . This requirement must be ” strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received'”… . Whether due diligence has been satisfied must be “determined on a case-by-case basis, focusing not on the quantity of the attempts at personal delivery, but on their quality” … . Specifically, “it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment” … .

Here, the submissions in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained numerous inconsistent dates regarding when service was attempted and made upon the defendant. Even accepting the dates of attempted service claimed by the plaintiff, those attempts were “made on weekdays during hours when it reasonably could have been expected that [the defendant] was either working or in transit to work”… . Moreover, there is no indication that the process server made any attempt to locate the defendant’s place of employment so he could attempt to effectuate service there … . Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish that he exercised due diligence in attempting to effectuate service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) before resorting to service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) … . Faruk v Dawn, 2018 NY Slip Op 04307, Second Dept 6-13-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 308 (SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/AFFIX AND MAIL  (SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/JURISDICTION  (SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘GOOD CAUSE’ AND ‘INTEREST OF JUSTICE’ CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s cross motion to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint was properly granted. Defendant doctor had retired and was no longer working at the place of business where the medical malpractice summons and complaint was served:

… [A]n attempt at service that later proves defective cannot be the basis for a “good cause” extension of time to serve process pursuant to CPLR 306-b… . However, the more flexible “interest of justice” standard accommodates late service that might be due to mistake, confusion, or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant … . Indeed, the court may consider diligence or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor, in making its determination, including expiration of the statute of limitations, the potentially meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant … .

Here, several factors weighed in favor of granting the plaintiff’s cross motion. The action was timely commenced, and the statute of limitations with respect to one of the two causes of action had expired when the plaintiff cross-moved for relief  … . The appellant also had actual notice of this action within 120 days after its commencement … . Furthermore, an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 306-b in the interest of justice is available where, as here, “service is timely made within the 120-day period but is subsequently found to have been defective” … .Finally, we note that whether a plaintiff has demonstrated that he or she has a potentially meritorious cause of action is but one factor to be considered by a court in determining a CPLR 306-b motion … . Estate of Fernandez v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 04306, Second Dept 6-13-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘GOOD CAUSE’ AND ‘INTEREST OF JUSTICE’ CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 306-b  (MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘GOOD CAUSE’ AND ‘INTEREST OF JUSTICE’ CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS  (MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘GOOD CAUSE’ AND ‘INTEREST OF JUSTICE’ CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EXTEND TIME, MOTION TO (SERVICE OF PROCESS, MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘GOOD CAUSE’ AND ‘INTEREST OF JUSTICE’ CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the driver of a bus, Garcia, was not liable for suddenly applying the brakes pursuant to the emergency doctrine. A taxi had suddenly swerved into the bus’s lane:

The motion court properly invoked the emergency doctrine in finding that no issues of fact exist as to defendants’ negligence given plaintiff’s failure in opposition to adduce any evidence tending to show that the bus operator, defendant Garcia, created the emergency or could have avoided a collision with the nonparty livery taxi by taking some action other than applying his brakes … . The sudden unexpected swerving of the livery taxi into the bus’s lane required Garcia to take immediate action … . Garcia’s reaction of pressing the brakes with enough force to prevent an impact between his bus and the taxi and swerving the bus to the right was a reasonable response to the emergency that was not of his own making … . That Garcia was aware that taxis often cut buses off does not require a different result. Jones v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04281, First Dept 6-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (BUSES, BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (BUSES, (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/BRAKES (BUSES, BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))

/

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged a makeshift ladder slid out from under him. A co-worker’s statement that plaintiff may have missed the last step did not refute plaintiff’s statement that the ladder slid out from under him:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim with his testimony that the makeshift ladder on which he was descending after detaching a crane cable from the top of an eight-foot C-box slid out from under him … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of plaintiff’s coworker, who stated that “[he] observed [plaintiff] fall from the ladder after he appeared to have missed’ the last step,” does not raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident, as it does not refute plaintiff’s assertion that the ladder slid out from beneath him … . Nolan v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 04293, First Dept 6-12-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT))

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER BASED ON CONTRACTUAL SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SUBCONTRACTOR IS LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact (1) whether one defendant, the general contractor Russco, could be liable under Labor Law 240 (1) for plaintiff’s fall from a ladder based upon contractual safety responsibilities, and (2) whether another defendant, Ruggles, could be liable under Labor Law 240 (1) as a statutory agent of the owner exercising supervision and control over the work:

… [T]he contract … provides that Russco [the general contractor] is responsible for “taking all reasonable safety precautions to prevent injury or death to persons or damage to property” and that such responsibility extends “to the protection of all employees on the Project and all other persons who may be affected by the Work in any way” … . The project is defined in the contract as “construction of all Tenant Improvements for a retail store.” Reading these contractual provisions together creates ambiguity as to whether Russco’s site safety obligations extended to the signage and awning work that plaintiff was performing when his accident occurred. * * *

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim should not be dismissed as against Ruggles. “Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners, general contractors, and their agents to provide proper protection to persons working upon elevated structures” … . “To be treated as a statutory agent, the subcontractor must have been delegated the supervision and control either over the specific work area involved or the work which [gave] rise to the injury'” … . “[O]nce a subcontractor qualifies as a statutory agent, it may not escape liability by the simple expedient of delegating that work to another entity”  … .

Ruggles is a proper Labor Law § 240(1) defendant because it was a statutory agent of Express, the owner of the project. White v 31-01 Steinway, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04279. First Dept 6-12-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER BASED ON CONTRACTUAL SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SUBCONTRACTOR IS LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER (FIRST DEPT))/SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER BASED ON CONTRACTUAL SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SUBCONTRACTOR IS LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTORY AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER BASED ON CONTRACTUAL SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SUBCONTRACTOR IS LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER BASED ON CONTRACTUAL SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SUBCONTRACTOR IS LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, determined that a damages award in a negligence suit brought by a police officer receiving accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits must be offset by those benefits as a collateral source pursuant to CPLR 4545:

The … question presented … is whether a retired New York City police officer’s accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits are a collateral source that a court must offset against the injured retiree’s jury award for future lost earnings and pension. We hold that ADR benefits operate to replace earnings during the period when the retiree could have been employed, absent the disabling injury, and then serve as pension allotments, and so a court must offset a retiree’s projected ADR benefits against the jury award for both categories of economic loss. * * *

The statutory and regulatory scheme governing ADR benefits, and the text and legislative intent of CPLR 4545 … provide the basis for our conclusion that ADR benefits operate sequentially as payment for future lost earnings and pension benefits. Accordingly, on a motion pursuant to CPLR 4545, a court must apply ADR benefits, dollar-for-dollar, to offset the jury award for future lost earnings during the period they represent lost earnings, and future lost pension during the period they represent lost pension. Andino v Mills, 2018 NY Slip Op 04273, CtApp, 6-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE,  DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/DAMAGES (COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/COLLATERAL SOURCE (DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/CPLR 4545 (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE,  DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/POLICE OFFICERS  (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))

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