You are here: / YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL...

Search Results

/ ,

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that a youthful offender (YO) adjudication can be considered in assessing the risk level of a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Defendant contested the level three sex offender designation. The Court of Appeals held that consideration of the YO adjudication in this context did not violate the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL):

CPL 720.35 (2) provides the Board with access to YO-related documents. Defendant’s argument that access alone does not authorize use ignores that the CPL does not permit access for its own sake, but in furtherance of a statutory purpose. Here, that purpose is found in SORA, which requires the Board establish guidelines and make risk level determinations based, in part, on an offender’s past actions (Correction Law § 168-l [5]). * * *

Certainly, the youthful offender statute reflects the Legislature’s recognition of the difference between a youth and an adult, and the Legislature clearly made a policy choice to give a class of young people a distinct benefit. Nevertheless, in concluding that an earlier YO adjudication may be used in assessing points against defendant, the Board has not acted in violation of the CPL … . People v Francis, 2018 NY Slip Op 01017, CtApp 2-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (OUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP))

/

MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a concurrence and a concurrence/dissent, in a memorandum addressing two cases (McCain and Edward), determined the misdemeanor complaints were sufficient to support the charge of possessing a “dangerous knife:”

The factual allegations of a misdemeanor complaint must establish “reasonable cause” to believe that a defendant committed the charged offense … . Reasonable cause “exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it” … .

Here, the factual allegations of each misdemeanor complaint establish reasonable cause to believe that each defendant possessed a “dangerous knife” … , triggering the statutory presumption of unlawful intent arising from such possession … .

From the concurrence/dissent:

I concur in the result in People v McCain because the officer’s sworn statement attached to the complaint specifies that the “knife was activated by deponent to an open and locked position through the force of gravity,” which meets the statutory definition of “gravity knife” in Penal Law § 265.00 (5), and therefore a fortiori is a “dangerous knife” under Penal Law § 265.01, when subsections (1) and (2) thereof are read together.

I dissent from the result in People v Edward for the reasons set out in Judge Simons’ dissent in Matter of Jamie D.(59 NY2d 589 [1983]). People v McCain, 2018 NY Slip Op 01018, CtApp 2-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP))/DANGEROUS KNIFE (CRIMINAL LAW, MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP))/WEAPON, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF (MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP))/MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS (CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS ADEQUATELY CHARGED POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS KNIFE (CT APP))

/

NO SPECIAL RULES APPLY TO DISCOVERY OF FACEBOOK POSTS IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY SHOULD BE BASED UPON RELEVANCE TO THE ACTION BALANCED AGAINST PRIVACY CONCERNS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the appellate division, clarified the standards to be applied to a defendant’s discovery request for Facebook posts in a personal injury case. Plaintiff was injured falling from defendant’s horse and alleged her cognitive and physical abilities were diminished significantly by her injuries. Plaintiff had posted pictures reflecting her lifestyle on her Facebook page, which was deactivated six months after the accident. Defendant sought plaintiff’s entire “private” Facebook account, arguing that photographs and written postings (showing her cognitive abilities) were material and necessary to the defense (CPLR 3101(a)). “Supreme Court granted the motion to compel to the limited extent of directing plaintiff to produce all photographs of herself privately posted on Facebook prior to the accident that she intends to introduce at trial, all photographs of herself privately posted on Facebook after the accident that do not depict nudity or romantic encounters, and an authorization for Facebook records showing each time plaintiff posted a private message after the accident and the number of characters or words in the messages. … [The appellate division] modified by limiting disclosure to photographs posted on Facebook that plaintiff intended to introduce at trial (whether pre- or post-accident) and eliminating the authorization permitting defendant to obtain data relating to post-accident messages …”. In reinstating Supreme Court’s order, the Court of Appeals held that no special rules apply to Facebook accounts and courts should allow discovery based upon relevance, balanced against privacy concerns:

… [C]ourts should first consider the nature of the event giving rise to the litigation and the injuries claimed, as well as any other information specific to the case, to assess whether relevant material is likely to be found on the Facebook account. Second, balancing the potential utility of the information sought against any specific “privacy” or other concerns raised by the account holder, the court should issue an order tailored to the particular controversy that identifies the types of materials that must be disclosed while avoiding disclosure of nonrelevant materials. In a personal injury case such as this it is appropriate to consider the nature of the underlying incident and the injuries claimed and to craft a rule for discovering information specific to each. …

With respect to the items Supreme Court ordered to be disclosed (the only portion of the discovery request we may consider), defendant more than met his threshold burden of showing that plaintiff’s Facebook account was reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence. At her deposition, plaintiff indicated that, during the period prior to the accident, she posted “a lot” of photographs showing her active lifestyle. Likewise, given plaintiff’s acknowledged tendency to post photographs representative of her activities on Facebook, there was a basis to infer that photographs she posted after the accident might be reflective of her post-accident activities and/or limitations. …

… [I]t was reasonably likely that the data revealing the timing and number of characters in posted messages would be relevant to plaintiffs’ claim that she suffered cognitive injuries that caused her to have difficulty writing and using the computer, particularly her claim that she is painstakingly slow in crafting messages. Forman v Henkin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01015, CtApp 2-13-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, FACEBOOK, NO SPECIAL RULES APPLY TO DISCOVERY OF FACEBOOK POSTS IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY SHOULD BE BASED UPON RELEVANCE TO THE ACTION BALANCED AGAINST PRIVACY CONCERNS (CT APP))/DISCOVERY (FACEBOOK,  NO SPECIAL RULES APPLY TO DISCOVERY OF FACEBOOK POSTS IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY SHOULD BE BASED UPON RELEVANCE TO THE ACTION BALANCED AGAINST PRIVACY CONCERNS (CT APP))/FACEBOOK (DISCOVERY, NO SPECIAL RULES APPLY TO DISCOVERY OF FACEBOOK POSTS IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY SHOULD BE BASED UPON RELEVANCE TO THE ACTION BALANCED AGAINST PRIVACY CONCERNS (CT APP))

/

BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed Surrogate’s Court’s finding that there was only one original will, a finding made upon remittal from the Court of Appeals. Because no will was found upon decedent’s death, and because, in the initial Surrogate’s Court proceeding, there was conflicting evidence about whether there was one will, with three copies, or four original wills, the presumption of revocation by the decedent had not been rebutted (the decedent could have possessed an original will). In the post-remittal proceeding, Surrogate’s Court determined petitioner, the sole beneficiary of the will, had proven there was only one will, not multiple original wills. Because, upon remittal, Surrogate’s Court found there was only one original will, the presumption of revocation by the decedent did not arise (because the decedent could not have possessed an original). The wills were drawn for decedent and her ex-husband. Petitioner, the ex-husband’s father, was made alternate beneficiary. When decedent and her ex-husband were divorced, the will as it related to the ex-husband was revoked by operation of law, triggering the petitioner’s alternate beneficiary status. The objectants are decedent’s parents and brothers:

​

Contrary to objectants’ contention, it cannot be said that the Surrogate erred in crediting the ex-husband’s testimony that he and decedent each signed one original will, one original power of attorney, and one original health care proxy, and that the attorney’s office made three photocopies of each of those estate planning documents. Despite the uncertainty with respect to the ex-husband’s testimony at the initial hearing, his testimony at the hearing upon remittal unequivocally clarified that there was only one original of each of six estate planning documents, i.e., his will, power of attorney, and health care proxy, and decedent’s will, power of attorney, and health care proxy. We conclude that the other instances of inconsistent testimony alleged by objectants have no bearing on the issue whether decedent executed only one original will and were otherwise adequately clarified by the ex-husband. Matter of Lewis, 2018 NY Slip Op 00941, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/WILLS (PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/REVOCATION, PRESUMPTION OF (WILLS, BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT))

/

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted petitioner a license pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 881 to enter respondent’s property to paint petitioner’s fence. The fact that petitioner built the fence too close to the property line did not preclude the granting of the license:

​

… [W]e conclude that, in the absence of a statutory definition, the usual and commonly understood meaning of the words “improvement” and/or “repair” encompasses the painting of the wooden fence in this case … .That interpretation is supported by the legislative history, which establishes that the legislature—in recognition that the nature of abutting properties often requires property owners to access the neighboring property in order to make improvements or repairs to their own—intended to encourage such improvements or repairs by removing unreasonable obstacles to efforts to prevent blight and deterioration … . Stuck v Hickmott, 2018 NY Slip Op 01013, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/FENCES (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/LICENSE (RPAPL 881) (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY  (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the hospital’s (Crouse Hospital’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The defendant doctor was not a hospital employee and no hospital employee was named in the complaint or bill of particulars. The plaintiff, in answering the hospital’s summary judgment motion, claimed for the first time that two nurses were negligent. That new theory of recovery could not defeat the motion:

​

Following discovery, the hospital moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, contending that the physician defendant was not its employee and that the hospital therefore could not be held vicariously liable for his alleged negligence. In opposing the motion, plaintiff did not address the hospital’s contention with respect to the physician defendant’s employment status and instead argued for the first time that two of the hospital’s nurses were negligent and that the hospital was vicariously liable for their actions. In our view, that is a new theory of recovery and thus could not be used by plaintiff to defeat the hospital’s motion … . We note that plaintiff did not move to amend the bill of particulars to allege that the hospital was vicariously liable for the nurses’ negligence. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not dispute that the hospital was not vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the physician defendant, there was no basis to deny the motion, which we now grant. DeMartino v Kronhaus, 2018 NY Slip Op 00974, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ANSWERING PAPERS,  PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice against the resident (O’Donnell) who assisted the plaintiff’s surgeon (Weise) should have been dismissed. Although the resident severed a nerve during the bone drilling procedure, the resident was under the supervision of the surgeon and exercised no independent judgment. Therefore the action against the resident and the hospital (Crouse Hospital), as the resident’s employer, should have been dismissed:

​

It is well settled that a “resident who assists a doctor during a medical procedure, and who does not exercise any independent medical judgment, cannot be held liable for malpractice so long as the doctor’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the resident should be held liable for failing to intervene” … . Even where a resident “play[s] an active role in [plaintiff’s] procedure,” the resident cannot commit malpractice unless he or she was shown to have exercised some ” independent medical judgment’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff was Wiese’s patient, and Wiese determined the type of surgery to be performed on plaintiff. The deposition testimony of O’Donnell and Wiese establishes that O’Donnell was acting as a resident under Wiese’s direction and supervision during the procedure. Indeed, Wiese testified at his deposition and averred in his affidavit that he supervised O’Donnell’s selection of the location and angle of the drill, and that he made the decision to stop drilling. We therefore conclude that O’Donnell and Crouse Hospital met their burden on the motion by establishing that O’Donnell did not exercise independent medical judgment with respect to his operation of the drill, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . Blendowski v Wiese, 2018 NY Slip Op 00973, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

/

PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff lacrosse player’s action was not barred by a waiver or the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Plaintiff was in a ground ball drill when a coach through a ball at her head, injuring her. The coach’s act was arguably grossly negligent, reckless or intentional, and therefore not covered by the waiver or the doctrine of assumption of the risk:

​

Here, plaintiff’s complaint and affidavit include allegations that the actions of defendants were grossly negligent and extremely reckless. Contrary to defendants’ contention, the written waiver does not bar plaintiff’s action inasmuch as a waiver is not enforceable with respect to allegations of grossly negligent conduct … .

​

… [I]t is well settled that a person who voluntarily participates in a recreational activity such as lacrosse “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation”… . “Such a person, however, will not assume the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, nor will a claim be barred where the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent’ in the activity” … . Tauro v Gait, 2018 NY Slip Op 00952, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK  (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT)/WAIVER (LACROSSE INJURY, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))/LACROSSE (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the assumption of the risk defense applied in this boating accident case. Plaintiff was in a beginner’s sailing program. Her boat capsized and she was struck by the boom when she attempt to right it. Defendants had not provided any capsize-recovery training:

​

“The assumption of [the] risk doctrine applies as a bar to liability where a consenting participant in sporting or recreational activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks’ “… . “However, the doctrine of primary assumption of [the] risk will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in sailing, we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with sailing by failing to provide any capsize recovery training to plaintiff and by letting plaintiff sail on the lake under the weather conditions present on the day of the accident … . Ulin v Hobart & William Smith Colls., 2018 NY Slip Op 00985, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (SAILING, ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SAILING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))/SAILING (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER (1) DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, (2) WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND (3) WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that there were questions of fact whether defendant BGB was liable under Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) as a general contractor or agent of the owner, and whether BGB was liable under Labor Law 200 because of its control over the work site and notice of the dangerous condition. In addition the Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the lintel over a doorway fell on plaintiff because of the absence of a safety device (Labor Law 240 (1)). The dissent argued that no safety device was required as a matter of law. With respect to whether BGB was a general contractor or agent of the owner, and whether BGB could be liable under Labor Law 200, the court wrote:

“An entity is a contractor within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) if it had the power to enforce safety standards and choose responsible subcontractors . . . , and an entity is a general contractor if, in addition thereto, it was responsible for coordinating and supervising the . . . project” … . In addition, an entity that serves as “a construction manager may be vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner . . . where the manager had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury’ “… . Here, BGB’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether BGB had the authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work, and thus whether it may be held liable as a general contractor or an agent of the owner … .

​

With regard to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against BGB, we conclude that, contrary to BGB’s contention on its cross appeal, it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact whether it had ” control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition’ ” that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries … . Robinson v Spragues Wash. Sq., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01007, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

LABOR LAW -CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/OWNER, AGENT OF (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (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