You are here: / Judges
, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHED THE RECORD AND ISSUED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ALLOWING PLANTIFFS TO PAVE AN EASEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, searched the record and issued a declaratory judgment allowing plaintiffs to pave an easement and further should not have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have an easement which allows access to their driveway. Plaintiffs alleged the easement needed to be paved because their vehicle would hit bottom crossing it:

A party’s right of passage over an easement carries with it the ” right to maintain it in a reasonable condition for such use’ “… . The right to repair and maintain an easement includes “the right to carry out work as necessary to reasonably permit the passage of vehicles and, in so doing, to not only remove impediments but supply deficiencies in order to construct [or repair] a suitable road’ “… . The right to repair and maintain, however, is “limited to those actions necessary to effectuate the express purpose of [the] easement’ ” … , and thus the work performed must not “materially increase the burden of the servient estate[] or impose new and additional burdens on the servient estate[]” … . Relatedly, the servient landowner has a “corresponding right[] to have the natural condition of the terrain preserved, as nearly as possible’ . . . and to insist that the easement enjoyed shall remain substantially as it was at the time it accrued, regardless of whether benefit or damage will result from a proposed change’ ” … . …

Defendant contends on his appeal that the court erred in searching the record and entering a declaratory judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. We agree. As an initial matter, although plaintiffs did not seek declaratory relief, the court has the authority to “grant any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded, imposing such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3017 [a]…). We conclude, however, that the declaration was not appropriate given the evidence presented here. Tarsel v Trombino, 2018 NY Slip Op 08779, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY OR VISITATION BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have transferred custody to father and suspended all contact between the child and mother for a year without conducting a hearing. The First Department further held that the judge should not have, sua sponte, prohibited mother from filing future petitions for custody or visitation without leave of court because no party requested that relief:

… [T]he court erred when, without holding an evidentiary hearing, it made a final order transferring physical and legal custody to the father and suspending all contact between the mother and the child for a year. Determination of the child’s best interests requires examination of the totality of the circumstances … . We have consistently held that “an evidentiary hearing is necessary before a court modifies a prior order of custody or visitation,” even where the court is familiar with the parties and child, and particularly where there are facts in dispute … . Furthermore, while we have stated that a hearing on modification of a custody arrangement in the child’s best interests “may be as abbreviated, in the court’s broad discretion, as the particular allegations and known circumstances warrant. . . ,’ it must include an opportunity for both sides, and the children’s attorney when there is one, to present their respective cases, and the factual underpinnings of any temporary order [must be] made clear on the record'” … .

Here, the court made a final determination without taking any testimony or entering any documents into evidence. The court’s reliance on statements made by the ACS caseworker during a court conference was inappropriate, since the mother’s attorney had requested, but was denied, a full hearing at which counsel could have cross-examined the caseworker. Matter of Michael G. v Katherine C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08568, First Dept 12-13-18

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in this foreclosure action, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held that a party (Moreno) was a necessary party and should not have dismissed the complaint against the other defendants on that ground:

Bromley [plaintiff] argues, in effect, that it was denied due process as a result of being unable to contest whether Dual Properties is the fee owner and whether Moreno is a necessary party.

“The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Here, the record does not support the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Moreno’s ownership of the property was “uncontested.” In any event, the court’s determination that Moreno was a necessary party prejudiced Bromley in that “it was never afforded the opportunity to present evidence refuting the court’s sua sponte determination” … .

Accordingly, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to, sua sponte, direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the remaining defendants for failure to join a necessary party. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Moreno, 2018 NY Slip Op 08107, Second Dept 11-28-18

FORECLOSURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/NECESSARY PARTIES (FORECLOSURE, SUA SPONTE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Ibrahims, the driver and owner of the second car in a four-car chain-reaction rear-end accident, were entitled to summary judgment. The accident occurred in Pennsylvania but all parties were residents of New York. Supreme Court, sua sponte, held that Pennsylvania law applied and the Ibrahims summary judgment motion must be denied under Pennsylvania law. The Second Department noted that none of the parties raised the choice of law issue and therefore the parties must be deemed to have consented to the applicability of New York law:

The Supreme Court should not have raised the issue of Pennsylvania law of its own accord, and should not have based its determination of the motion on a ground that was neither raised nor briefed by the parties … . “Parties to a civil litigation, in the absence of a strong countervailing public policy, may consent, formally or by their conduct, to the law to be applied” … . By failing to raise a choice of law issue in opposition to Ibrahim’s motion for summary judgment, the codefendants are deemed to have consented to the application of New York law… .

In this case, Ibrahim established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he brought his vehicle safely to a stop behind the lead vehicle before being struck in the rear by the Goldman vehicle … . Abdou v Malone, 2018 NY Slip Op 08106, Second Dept 11-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CHOICE OF LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/CHOICE OF LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (HE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed Family Court’s custody ruling because the ruling was not supported by factual findings. The matter was remitted:

It is “well established that the court is obligated to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” (…see CPLR 4213 [b]; Family Ct Act § 165 [a]). Here, the court utterly failed to follow that well-established rule inasmuch as it made no findings to support its determination. “Effective appellate review, whatever the case but especially in child visitation, custody or neglect proceedings, requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” … . We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the mother’s petition, and remit the matter to Family Court to make a determination on the petitions, including specific findings as to a change in circumstances and the best interests of the child, following an additional hearing if necessary … . Matter of Brown v Orr, 2018 NY Slip Op 07905, Fourth Dept 11-16-28

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, APPEALS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, APPEALS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, APPEALS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have left it to the parties to work out mother’s supervised therapeutic parental access:

Here, the Family Court’s determination that there had been a change in circumstances and that it was in the children’s best interests to award the father sole legal and residential custody, with the mother’s access limited to supervised therapeutic parental access is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed … .

However, the Family Court should have set forth in its order a schedule and designated a provider for supervised therapeutic parental access, rather than implicitly delegating the resolution of those issues to the parties … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Orange County, to forthwith set an appropriate schedule and select a provider for the mother’s supervised therapeutic parental access with the children. Matter of Thomas R.K. v Tamara S.K., 2018 NY Slip Op 07725, Second Dept 11-14-18

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT))/DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL DUTIES (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have ordered the payment of attorney’s fees for frivolous conduct without allowing the affected party to be heard on the question:

“The court, in its discretion, may award to any party or attorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court, . . . costs in the form of reimbursement for . . . reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). An award of costs or the imposition of sanctions “may be made either upon motion in compliance with CPLR 2214 or 2215 or upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]). Here, the respondents did not cross-move for costs or sanctions in compliance with CPLR 2215, the respondents’ opposition to the petitioner’s motion for leave to renew did not clearly articulate a request for costs or sanctions, and there is no indication in this record that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard on this issue … . Accordingly, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding costs to the respondents in the form of attorneys’ fees in the sum of $2,500 … . Matter of Garvey v Sullivan, 2018 NY Slip Op 07724, Second Dept 11-14-18

JUDGES (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (SANCTIONS, ATTORNEY’S FEES, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (ATTORNEYS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/SANCTIONS (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTORNEYS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2214, 2215 (ATTORNEYS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and an order of reference should have been granted. By not raising lack of standing as a defense in the answer, the defense was waived. Supreme Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, deny plaintiff’s motion on that ground:

… [U]nder this Court’s well-established precedent, as articulated in Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo (42 AD3d 239), the defense of lack of standing is waived if not raised by the defendant in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss. Accordingly, by failing to answer the complaint or to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants waived the defense of lack of standing … . Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings before a different Justice. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Halberstam, 2018 NY Slip Op 07485, Second Dept 11-7-18

FORECLOSURE (THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL, FORECLOSURE, THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision, over a comprehensive dissent, determined that the general contractor, Ultimate, was not liable under Labor Law 200 for plaintiff’s fall through an opening in planks and plywood covering a stairwell opening because the accident was attributable to the manner of the work and Ultimate did not exercise any supervisory control over the installation of drywall by the plaintiff. The dissent argued that there was a question of fact whether the opening in the stairwell covering was a dangerous condition of which Ultimate had notice, which is also a ground for liability under Labor Law 200. The Second Department noted that the court should not have sua sponte dismissed Ultimate’s cross claims against the drywall company (Fortin) because such relief was not requested. The Second Department further noted that Fortin was not entitled to protection from plaintiff’s suit under the Workers’ Compensation Law on the ground that plaintiff was Fortin’s employee because Fortin did not maintain a Workers’ Compensation policy:

“Labor Law § 200(1) is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work”… . “Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” … . Where “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had unless it is shown that the party to be charged exercised some supervisory control over the operation” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … . …

… Ultimate established, … that the accident arose from the method and manner in which the plaintiff and Jean-Guy Fortin covered the stairwell opening … . …

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, sua sponte, directed dismissal of Ultimate’s cross claims against Fortin for common-law indemnification and contribution, which relief Fortin did not request in its motion papers… . Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Ultimate’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim against Fortin for common-law indemnification. Contrary to Fortin’s contention, Ultimate’s cross claims are not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. … Ultimate established that Fortin did not procure workers’ compensation on behalf of the plaintiff … . Therefore, Fortin is not entitled to the benefit of the workers’ compensation bar. Poulin v Ultimate Homes, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07468, Second Dept 11-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT)

,

COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that Supreme Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, vacate its prior decision and order and reinstate a 2014 judgment. The motion papers did not request any relief that could be the basis of the court’s action:

“[A] trial court has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order or judgment” … . Although “a court may grant relief[] pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion . . . ” … , no such clause was contained in plaintiff’s notice of motion. In the absence of any cross motion from the defendants, or any other kind of request for vacatur of the court’s prior order decision and prior order and reinstatement of the prior judgment, the court erred in doing so on its own initiative. Howell v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07178, First Dept 10-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))/JUDGES (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST 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