You are here: / MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN...

Search Results

/ , ,

MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a power point presentation made by a defendant in a medical malpractice action was discoverable, even though the power point presentation was created for a quality assurance review meeting (usually off limits for discovery pursuant to Executive Law 6527):

We … conclude that the disputed materials are discoverable under the exception to the privilege for “statements made by any person in attendance at . . . a [medical or quality assurance review] meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting” (Education Law § 6527 [3]). Disclosure under that exception may be obtained where: (1) the statements were made during a quality assurance review meeting; (2) that review meeting concerned the same subject matter as the malpractice action; and (3) the statements were made by a defendant in the action … . “Statements” include written statements, such as letters… , and the PowerPoint slide show at issue here. Drum v Collure, 2018 NY Slip Op 03244, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EDUCATION LAW, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/HOSPITALS (QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (HOSPITALS, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, EDUCATION LAW, QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW,  MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT, POINTING TO GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the fact that the people engaged by defendant to paint the property were volunteers did not preclude the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior based upon a principal-agent relationship. Plaintiff was injured by a ladder when she left the building. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. The court noted that pointing to gaps in the opposing party’s proof will not support summary judgment:

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal is liable for the negligent acts committed by its agent within the scope of the agency”… , and “[a] principal-agent relationship can include a volunteer when the requisite conditions, including control and acting on another’s behalf, are shown” … . Here, defendants each failed to establish as a matter of law that the volunteers at the residence where plaintiff was injured may not be considered their servants for purposes of respondeat superior liability … , or that the duty to ensure that the work was performed safely may not fairly be imposed upon them … .

In addition, defendants cannot meet their burden on their respective summary judgment motions and cross motion based upon plaintiff’s failure to identify the volunteer(s) who caused the ladder to strike her … . “[I]n seeking summary judgment, [a] moving party must affirmatively [demonstrate] the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof’ “… . Defendants’ failure to meet their burden requires denial of the motions and cross motion, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” … . Rozmus v Wesleyan Church of Hamburg, 2018 NY Slip Op 03261, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT))/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (NEGLIGENCE, VOLUNTEERS, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT))/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT))/AGENCY (NEGLIGENCE, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, VOLUNTEERS, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (POINTING TO GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the assumption of the risk doctrine and the signed release did not warrant summary judgment in favor of defendant in this horseback-riding injury case. Plaintiff fell from a horse during a riding lesson:

… [I]t is undisputed that plaintiff was a beginner and had never before attempted to mount or ride a horse, and the deposition testimony relied upon by defendants raises questions of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with mounting the horse by failing to give plaintiff adequate instructions and assistance based on her size, athleticism, and obvious struggles in attempting to mount the horse, and whether there were concealed risks of mounting the horse, i.e., whether the horse was “tacked” properly … . For the same reasons, we reject defendants’ contention, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the written release established as a matter of law that, as per the language of the release, plaintiff expressly assumed “the unavoidable risks inherent in all horse-related activities” … .  Jones v Smoke Tree Farm, 2018 NY Slip Op 03299, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/HORSES (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/RELEASE (HORSE RIDING LESSONS, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

/

RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the negligence claim against the state in this slip and fall case was properly dismissed after trial. The raised metal plate in the sidewalk was deemed a trivial defect, not a dangerous condition:

The evidence at trial established that the incident occurred on a clear, sunny day, that claimant saw the readily apparent steel plate, and that the height differential between the steel plate and the sidewalk was small. Graham v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03294, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

/

EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this parking-lot snow-ice slip and fall case was properly denied. Defendant’s submissions included evidence one of plaintiff’s employee had slipped and fallen on ice in the parking lot several hours before plaintiff fell. That evidence raised a question of fact whether defendant had constructive knowledge of the condition:

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . Although “an owner’s general awareness’ that a dangerous condition may exist is insufficient to support a finding that the owner had constructive notice of the specific condition that caused the plaintiff to slip and fall” … , evidence that another person had fallen in the “same general vicinity” a few hours before the plaintiff’s fall raises triable issues of fact whether the condition existed for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Inasmuch as defendant submitted evidence that its employee slipped in the same parking lot as plaintiff several hours before plaintiff’s fall and thereafter observed the icy condition as he rendered aid to plaintiff, there are triable issues of fact “whether the icy condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident to permit defendant[] to discover it and take corrective action’ ” … . Cosgrove v River Oaks Rests., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03286, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL,  EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))

/

PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined a person who sends text messages to someone who is driving does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by the driver, ostensibly because the driver was distracted by the texts:

… [I]t is the duty of the driver to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care in the operation of his or her vehicle to avoid a collision with another vehicle …  If a person were to be held liable for communicating a text message to another person whom he or she knows or reasonably should know is operating a vehicle, such a holding could logically be expanded to encompass all manner of heretofore innocuous activities. A billboard, a sign outside a church, or a child’s lemonade stand could all become a potential source of liability in a negligence action. Each of the foregoing examples is a communication directed specifically at passing motorists and intended to divert their attention from the highway.

To be sure, cellular telephones and other electronic devices present unique distractions to motorists. For that reason, the legislature passed laws specifically to regulate the use of cellular telephones and other electronic devices by those operating motor vehicles … . The legislature did not create a duty to refrain from communicating with persons known to be operating a vehicle. To the contrary, those laws place the responsibility of managing or avoiding the distractions caused by electronic devices squarely with the driver. The driver has various means available for managing or avoiding such distractions, such as a hands-free device to handle incoming calls…  or a setting for temporarily disabling sounds or alerts. Or, the driver can simply pull over to the side of the highway to engage in any communications deemed too urgent to wait. The remote sender of a text message is not in a good position to know how the driver will or should handle incoming text messages. Vega v Crane, 2018 NY Slip Op 03262, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TEXT MESSAGES, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))/DUTY OF CARE (TEXT MESSAGES, DRIVERS, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))/TEXT MESSAGES (NEGLIGENCE, DRIVERS, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (TEXT MESSAGES, DRIVERS, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))/DRIVERS (TEXT MESSAGES, NEGLIGENCE, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS AND FATHER SUED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his cross claim against the county (seeking a determination that the county is obligated to defend and indemnify him) should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s son was killed in a car accident. Defendant, who was then a county coroner, without permission, took plaintiff’s son’s brain matter for use in training cadaver dogs. There was a question of fact whether the county was obligated to defend the coroner pursuant to the Public Officers Law, which applies to actions within the scope of employment:

A county’s duty to defend an employee “turns on whether [the employee was] acting within the scope of [his or her] employment,” and whether the obligation to defend the employee “was formally adopted by a local governing body” … . In order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under Public Officers Law § 18, it was incumbent on defendant to establish the applicability of that section … . Here, the court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant while still finding that there are issues of fact that bear on the applicability of Public Officers Law § 18 to defendant’s claims … . Dunn v County of Niagara, 2018 NY Slip Op 03271, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY, DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT))

/

WHILE WORKING ON A SIGN AT EYE LEVEL PLAINTIFF SLIPPED OFF A LANDSCAPING ROCK WHICH HE DID NOT NEED TO STAND ON TO DO THE WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff slipped off a landscaping rock while working on a business sign. Plaintiff did not need to stand on the rock to do the work, which involved removing letters from the sign. The Labor Law 241 (6) causes of action were not viable because plaintiff did not alleged the rock was slippery or that he tripped over the rock, plaintiff was not engaged in demolition work, and the rock could not be considered debris:

… [T]he court properly denied that part of his motion and granted those parts of defendants’ motions with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The record establishes that plaintiff was not “obliged to work at an elevation”… , which is a necessary element for recovery under section 240 (1). Indeed, plaintiff’s own deposition testimony submitted in support of his motion established that the work he was performing was at eye level and that he could have reached the sign from the ground. Thus, inasmuch as it was not necessary for plaintiff to stand on the rock to perform his work, he was not exposed to an elevation-related hazard of the type contemplated by section 240 (1) … . Even assuming, arguendo, that a safety device was required to protect plaintiff from such a hazard, we note that plaintiff further testified during his deposition that either of the A-frame ladders that had been provided for his use probably could have straddled the rock, but he thought that a ladder was not necessary … . Maracle v Autoplace Infiniti, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03252, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (WHILE WORKING ON A SIGN AT EYE LEVEL PLAINTIFF SLIPPED OFF A LANDSCAPING ROCK WHICH HE DID NOT NEED TO STAND ON TO DO THE WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

/

INJURY FROM A SAFETY BAR IN A BOBCAT WHICH FELL AFTER PLAINTIFF RAISED IT TO STEP OUT OF THE MACHINE DID NOT RESULT FROM A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted, but the Labor Law 241 (6) causes of action were viable. Plaintiff was injured when a safety bar in a Bobcat fell and struck him. The safety bar lowers onto the operator’s lap when the Bobcat is used. The bar fell after plaintiff raised it to step out of the machine:

… [T]he court properly granted defendants’ motion with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because plaintiff was not injured as the result of any ” physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . We further conclude that, contrary to defendants’ contention on their appeal, the court properly denied their motion with respect to the section 241 (6) claim insofar as it alleged a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a) because there are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff’s employer had actual notice of a structural defect or unsafe condition regarding the safety bar … . Finally, we agree with plaintiffs on their cross appeal that the court erred in granting defendants’ motion with respect to the section 241 (6) claim insofar as it alleges a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (3) because that regulation is sufficiently specific to support a claim under section 241 (6) … . Salerno v Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 03251, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY FROM A SAFETY BAR IN A BOBCAT WHICH FELL AFTER PLAINTIFF RAISED IT TO STEP OUT OF THE MACHINE DID NOT RESULT FROM A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT))/BOBCATS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, INJURY FROM A SAFETY BAR IN A BOBCAT WHICH FELL AFTER PLAINTIFF RAISED IT TO STEP OUT OF THE MACHINE DID NOT RESULT FROM A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT))

/

ALTHOUGH THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS STOPPED IN 2008, THE DEBT WAS NEVER ACCELERATED UNTIL THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2015, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was not time barred. The mortgage payments stopped in 2008. But the debt was never accelerated until the foreclosure action was commenced in 2015:

Where, as here, a loan secured by a mortgage is payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each unpaid installment, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that each installment becomes due … . Thus, unless the entire debt had been accelerated by the mortgage holder, on the date of a default the statute of limitations begins to run only for the installment payment that became due on that date … .

Here, defendants’ own submissions in support of the motion establish that the mortgage is an installment mortgage, the installment payments are due monthly until January 1, 2035, and defendants defaulted on the payment that was due September 1, 2008. Further, defendants failed to establish that plaintiff accelerated the debt by demanding payment of the entire loan or by commencing a prior foreclosure action. Thus, the action was timely commenced inasmuch as the statute of limitations did not begin to run on the entire debt until the instant action was commenced on February 20, 2015. Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Unknown Heirs at Law of Danny Higdon, 2018 NY Slip Op 03274, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​FORECLOSURE (ALTHOUGH THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS STOPPED IN 2008, THE DEBT WAS NEVER ACCELERATED UNTIL THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2015, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, (ALTHOUGH THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS STOPPED IN 2008, THE DEBT WAS NEVER ACCELERATED UNTIL THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2015, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH 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