You are here: / Negligence
, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN INJURED, THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED AS A CARPENTER BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING AND SUPERVISING THE WORK; SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not eliminate questions of fact about whether the homeowner’s exemption applied to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action and whether he was liable under the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Although the plaintiff was working on defendant’s private residence, plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by defendant:

Although the defendant demonstrated that the work being performed at his single-family home was directly related to its residential use … , the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not direct or control the plaintiff’s work. In support of his motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which the plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, the defendant owned a business that employed the plaintiff to perform carpentry work on decks and that the defendant instructed the plaintiff on which boards to remove and replace at the defendant’s home. The plaintiff also testified that the defendant provided all of the materials and tools that the plaintiff used for the work at the defendant’s home. Thus, the defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he directed or controlled the plaintiff’s work … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff’s accident arose from the means and methods of the work, not from a dangerous premises condition …. . [Defendant] failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, since he failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he had the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work … . Walsh v Kenny, 2023 NY Slip Op 04791, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was working on his employer’s (the defendant’s) private residence when injured. The defendant provided the materials and there was evidence he supervised the work. Therefore questions of fact precluded summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action (pursuant to the homeowner’s exemption to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action), as well as on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT WHICH RENTED OUT THE AERIAL LIFT WHICH MALFUNCTIONED WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION, HOWEVER, PROPERLY SURVIVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the Labor Law causes of action could not be brough against the defendant (Ahern) which rented out the aerial lift which malfunctioned. Ahern was not an agent of the owner or contractor and exercised no control over the work, so the Labor Law causes of action did not apply. However Ahern could be liable under a negligence theory:

… [O]nly contractors and owners and their agents can be held liable for Labor Law violations … . To be an “agent” of an owner or contractor, a party must have the ability to supervise and control the worksite and/or plaintiff’s work … . Here, plaintiff does not dispute that Ahern was neither an owner nor contractor within the meaning of the statute. The complaint only alleges that Ahern owned and maintained the aerial lift, not that Ahern exercised any supervision or control over the worksite … .

Plaintiff’s complaint, however, sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for negligence against Ahern. Plaintiff alleges that the aerial lift owned by Ahern malfunctioned, causing plaintiff’s coworker to spray plaintiff with the power washer. … [E]ven if plaintiff’s coworker proximately caused plaintiff’s injury, Ahern is not absolved of liability as “there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury” … . Kull v Ahern Rentals, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04721, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Here the company which rented out the aerial lift which malfunctioned was not an agent of the owner or contractor and exercised no control over the work. Therefore the Labor Law was not triggered. However, the company may be liable under a straight negligence theory.

 

, , ,

THE LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JOINED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to join or consolidate the Labor Law construction accident causes of action with the medical malpractice action stemming from the injuries should not have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced suit in Kings County against several construction-related entities alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence in connection with a work place accident causing injuries. After the accident plaintiff was taken to a NYCHHC facility for treatment. Plaintiff also commenced this suit in New York County against NYCHHC, alleging medical malpractice in connection with his post-accident treatment. Although the Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action involve common questions of fact, the medical malpractice action involves numerous additional allegations of professional negligence and injuries that are irrelevant to the Labor law action, and there are no common defendants.

The issues and applicable legal principles presented in plaintiff’s Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action arising out of his subsequent treatment, are so dissimilar that joinder or consolidation pursuant to CPLR 602(a) would not be beneficial and would likely result in jury confusion … . Licona-Rubio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04722, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Even though the construction-accident injuries were the basis for the medical malpractice action, the Labor Law and medical malpractice actions (against different defendants) should not have been joined or consolidated.

 

,

PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN PLAINTIFF’S CAR MADE A LEFT TURN AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF FROM BEHIND; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO SEE DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff pedestrian was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff was in the crosswalk when defendant made left turn and struck plaintiff from behind. Plaintiff could not be held comparatively negligent for failing to see and avoid the defendant‘s vehicle:

Plaintiff pedestrian established prima facie entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that she was crossing Broadway, within the crosswalk, with a “walk” sign in her favor, after looking both ways, when defendant’s vehicle, which was making a left turn onto Broadway, struck her from behind on her right side, pinning and dragging plaintiff under the vehicle and causing severe injuries to her right leg … . Plaintiff’s version of the accident is supported by the police report showing damage solely to the front driver side of the defendant’s vehicle following the accident and the medical reports and photographs showing the injuries to plaintiff’s right leg.

A plaintiff, who is struck by a vehicle that approaches from behind and to the right after turning left into the crosswalk where it struck plaintiff, may not be held comparatively negligent based on a theory that she could have seen and avoided the vehicle through the exercise of ordinary care … Shin v Ljulja, 2023 NY Slip Op 04740, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff pedestrian in a crosswalk was not comparatively negligent for not seeing defendant’s car making a left turn and striking plaintiff from behind.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE FROM JAIL PURSUANT TO CPL 180.80 BUT WAS KEPT INCARCERATED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2 1/2 MONTHS; PLAINTIFF’S FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false imprisonment and negligence should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff sued the town because he was not released from custody pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 180.80:

CPL 180.80 “requires the release of individuals being held in pretrial detention pending action of a Grand Jury after 120 or 144 hours of custody unless, among other neutralizing circumstances, an indictment has been voted” … . * * *

The allegation that the defendant detained the plaintiff for an additional 2½ months after it was required to release him pursuant to CPL 180.80 is a very serious one. This Court notes that the defendant does not deny this allegation outright, but instead attempts to shift blame to the plaintiff for what would, if true, be its own grievous error. McKay v Town of Southampton, 2023 NY Slip Op 04664, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was not released from jail when he was eligible for release pursuant to CPL 180.80. His lawsuit against the town for false imprisonment and negligence should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF PRE-ACCIDENT REPAIRS BUT NOT POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this stairway slip and fall case, determined plaintiff was entitled to discovery of pre-accident repairs, but not to post-accident repairs:

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to produce repair-related records for the subject stairway, and a list of all employees and contractors that performed work on the subject stairway, for the period of two years prior to the date of the subject accident. The plaintiffs demonstrated that those documents were material and necessary to the prosecution of this action, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that a protective order was warranted with respect to those documents … .

However, the Supreme Court erred in directing the defendant to disclose such records for the one-year period after the date of the accident. “Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case” … . “An exception to this rule applies if a defendant’s maintenance of, or control over, the subject instrumentality is at issue” … . Here, there is no issue as to the maintenance and control of the subject stairway … . C.B. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 04650, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff in this stairway slip and fall case is entitled to discovery of pre-accident, but not post-accident, repairs.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT; DEFENDANT LESSOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGATION THE CAR WAS NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED WAS “NOT A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s cause of action against the lessor of the car involved in the accident (Rallye) should not have been dismissed pursuant to the Graves Amendment. Defendant lessor did not demonstrate the allegation the car was negligently maintained was “not a fact at all:”

“Pursuant to the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106), the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if: (1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner” … .

In considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Further, where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and “unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it,” dismissal should not eventuate … .

Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, an affidavit from Rallye’s employee, who averred that Rallye’s vehicle was in good working condition at the time it allegedly was rented to Orphanides [the defendant driver], did not show that the plaintiff’s allegation of negligent maintenance on the part of Rallye was not a fact at all … . Holmquist v Orphanides, 2023 NY Slip Op 04660, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: In the context of a motion to dismiss, an affidavit stating that the leased car involved in the accident was in good working order will not, pursuant to the Graves Amendment, defeat a complaint which alleges the leased car was negligently maintained  The affidavit does not establish the negligent-maintenance allegation is “not a fact at all.”

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE; VIDEO OF A FEW SECONDS BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL WAS PRESERVED, BUT THE REST OF THE VIDEO WAS OVERWRITTEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s answer in this slip and fall case should not have been struck for spoliation of evidence. Defendant preserved video of the slip and fall which happened during a school dance—a few seconds before and after the fall. But the rest of the video was overwritten 21 days after the fall as part of a routine procedure. Defendant did not have notice of a potential lawsuit at the time the video was overwritten:

“‘Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126′” … . “‘A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense'” … . “In the absence of pending litigation or notice of a specific claim, a defendant should not be sanctioned for discarding items in good faith and pursuant to its normal business practices” … .

… The plaintiff did not establish that the defendant was placed on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation at the time the surveillance footage was overwritten … . The plaintiff did not notify the defendant of her claim or request that it preserve any surveillance footage until three months after the incident, by which time the surveillance footage had been automatically overwritten according to the defendant’s normal business practices.

… [D]efendant’s preservation of only a portion of the surveillance footage does not indicate a culpable state of mind … as the defendant’s representative, an assistant principal, averred in an affidavit that he saved the 51-second clip of the incident consistent with ordinary business practices. The assistant principal’s affidavit was also sufficient to provide the court with a “basis to find that the search for [the surveillance footage] had been a thorough one [and] that it had been conducted in a good faith effort to provide [the surveillance footage] to the plaintiff” … . Similarly, no evidence indicates that the defendant was negligent in failing to preserve the additional surveillance footage … . Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendant’s failure to preserve all of the surveillance footage fatally compromised her ability to prove her claim … . M.B. v St. Francis Preparatory Sch., 2023 NY Slip Op 04651, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: After video of the fall and a few seconds before and after the fall was preserved by the defendant, the remainder of the video was overwritten in accordance with usual procedure. Defendant was not on notice of a potential lawsuit when the video was overwritten. In the absence of evidence of bad faith, defendant’s answer should not have been struck for spoliation of evidence.

 

, ,

A DEFAULTING PARTY ADMITS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; THEREFORE LIABILITY ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE INQUEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined liability issues should not have been considered at the inquest where defendant had defaulted:

By defaulting, the defendant admitted “all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability” … . As such, the sole issue to be determined at the inquest was the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court should not have considered issues of liability … . Znojewski v Mamczur, 2023 NY Slip Op 04617, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: A defaulting party admits the allegations in the complaint. Liability issues are off limits at an inquest to determine damages.

 

,

A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL A NON-SLIP FLOOR OR A GRAB BAR IN A SHOWER STALL; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE AND NUMEROUS OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined that the facts alleged, a shower-stall floor that was slippery when wet, and the absence of a grab bar in the shower, did not state a cause of action for negligence because the allegations did not describe a duty owed to plaintiff:

… [T]he complaint alleged as defects that the shower floor was slippery and there were no grab bars in the shower stall where Royanne Weiss alleged she slipped and fell. However, there is no common-law or statutory requirement imposing a duty upon the defendants to provide nonslip surfacing or grab bars in a shower or shower stall … . Nor is there a duty to install such devices where the shower and shower stall were not alleged to be defective or hazardous for ordinary use . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted dismissal of the cause of action alleging common-law negligence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Weiss v Vacca, 2023 NY Slip Op 04613, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: The property owner did not have a duty to provide a non-slip floor or a grab bar in the shower stall which was not alleged to be defective or hazardous for ordinary use.

 

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