First Department – Page 126 – New York Appellate Digest

FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon plaintiff’s fall when he stepped on a pile of loose pipes was properly dismissed. However the Labor Law 200 cause of action and the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action against some of the defendants should not have been dismissed:

The court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, as that statute does not cover a fall allegedly caused by stepping on a pile of unsecured pipes on the floor of a construction site … . …

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should not be dismissed as against UA, Independent Mechanical, Intel Plumbing, and WeWork. The cause of plaintiff’s accident was not the manner in which his work was performed but a dangerous condition on the premises, i.e., the loose pipes that had been laid on the floor directly in front of a doorway … . …

… [T]he record does not support the summary dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as against the UA and 401 Park defendants. Plaintiff’s testimony that his fall was caused by a pile of loose pipes obstructing the doorway presents an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a tripping hazard in a passageway (Industrial Code [12 NYCRR] § 23-1.7[e][1] … ). There is also an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), since part of the floor where workers worked or passed was not kept free from scattered tools or materials … . In addition, there is an issue of fact as to whether the unsecured pipes, which were allegedly piled about two feet high directly in front of the doorway, were safely stored pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) … . Armental v 401 Park Ave. S. Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-2-20

April 2, 2020

Contract Law, Negligence

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE SECURITY-COMPANY CONTRACT AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF DETRIMENTALLY RELIED UPON A SECURITY GUARD’S PROMISE TO RESPOND TO HER CALL FOR HELP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant security company’s (Sera’s) motion for summary judgment in this patient-assault case was properly denied. Plaintiff, a nurse at a healthcare facility, was assaulted by a patient. Sera argued it was only responsible for providing protection against intruders, not patients. Because the contract with Sera was ambiguous the court properly considered extrinsic evidence (deposition testimony) which indicated Sera responded to staff’s calls for help dealing with patient “altercations” or “fighting.” There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the Sera’s contract with the facility and whether plaintiff detrimentally relied on Sera to protect her from the assault. Questions of fact about Sera’s duty to plaintiff and the foreseeability of the assault were raised:

Given [the] testimony and the contractual language, the motion court properly denied summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant is liable to plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the contract.

Similarly, the motion court also properly concluded that plaintiff raised questions of fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment as to whether Sera is liable to plaintiff under a theory of detrimental reliance based on plaintiff’s allegation that the Sera security guard promised to respond to plaintiff’s call for assistance, but failed to do so in a timely manner or failed to call the police promptly or at all (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140). Defendant’s security guard testified that he could not recall when he received the call from his colleague directing him to go to the floor where plaintiff worked, whether he was advised of any details of what was occurring, or how long it took him to get there. He further testified that he was trained to investigate calls prior to determining whether to call the police, and that, if a staff member called the security station about an incident, it was the Sera security guards’ responsibility to call 911 or the police when warranted. Kuti v Sera Sec. Servs., 2020 NY Slip Op 02153, First Dept 4-2-20

April 2, 2020

Evidence, Negligence, Products Liability

IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant-manufacturer (Doka) of an allegedly defective ratchet was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff could not produce the ratchet (spoliation). The ratchet was used to move heavy concrete forms into place along a track. Allegedly the ratchets broke when extra pressure was placed on them when the forms became “bound” on the track. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he used his foot to increase the pressure on the ratchet when the form became bound. Because this was a design-defect case, and because the ratchets allegedly had broken before under similar circumstance, the defendant-manufacturer could present a defense and, therefore, the loss of the ratchet did not warrant dismissal of the complaint:

In cases like this, where the claim is based on a design defect (as opposed to a manufacturing defect), the absence of the product is not necessarily fatal to the defendant. As this Court has observed, a product’s design “possibly might be evaluated and the defect proved circumstantially” … . Circumstantial evidence could, one would imagine, be the testimony of someone involved in the design process, and plans or photographs of the product before it entered the stream of commerce. It could also, assuming that the missing product was one of multiple units manufactured using the same design, be another one of those units. * * *

Doka does not, in any meaningful way, argue why its inability to inspect the exact ratchet that plaintiff was using would prevent it from defending against the products liability claim. Rossi v Doka USA, Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 02098, First Dept 3-26-20

March 26, 2020

Attorneys, Criminal Law

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; THE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PRO SE MOTION WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING, DESPITE THE TECHNICAL DEFECTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s pro se motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea, on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds, was properly denied without a hearing. The dissenters argued defendant raised the issue sufficiently to warrant a hearing:

Defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise defendant, prior to the guilty plea, of a potentially viable affirmative defense concerning the operability of the firearm used in the robberies … . Defendant did not submit, however, the statutorily-required “sworn allegations” of “the existence or occurrence of facts” in support of his motion to warrant such a hearing … . The rule that a CPL 440.10 motion must be predicated on sworn allegations is a fundamental statutory requirement that a defendant must satisfy to be entitled to a hearing … . Absent sworn allegations substantiating defendant’s contentions, the court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the motion … .

Specifically, defendant did not aver in his initial motion papers that he would have rejected the favorable plea deal and insisted on proceeding to trial had he been made aware of the potentially viable affirmative defense. Inasmuch as defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … , his failure to swear that he would have done so is fatal to his motion, and thus the court did not err in denying it without a hearing … . People v Dogan, 2020 NY Slip Op 02021, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

March 20, 2020

Appeals, Criminal Law

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT NECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant should have been informed his sentence would include a period of post release supervision (PRS). Because defendant was not put on notice, there was not need to preserve the issue for appeal:

At the plea proceeding, the court advised defendant that under the plea agreement, he would plead guilty to third-degree possession, a class B felony, and fifth-degree possession, a class D felony, with the understanding that if he complied with the terms of the plea agreement, he would be allowed to withdraw his plea to the B felony, and be sentenced, solely on the D felony, to 3½ years in prison, followed by two years of postrelease supervision. The court stated that if defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement, he could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison on the B felony, but it neglected to state that any enhanced sentence would include a period of PRS. Defendant violated the plea agreement by, among other things, failing to appear for sentencing, and the court imposed an enhanced sentence that included two years of post release supervision concurrent on the B and D felonies.

The court was required to advise defendant that his potential sentence in the event he violated the plea conditions would include PRS, and it was also required to specify the length of the term of PRS … . The prosecutor’s brief reference to PRS immediately before sentencing was not the type of notice under People v Murray (15 NY3d 725 [2010]) that would require defendant to preserve the issue … . People v Jamison, 2020 NY Slip Op 01955, First Dept 3-19-20

March 19, 2020

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence

CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO PRESERVE PRE-ACCIDENT POLICE COMMUNICATIONS IN THIS POLICE-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WERE AWARE THEY WOULD PROBABLY ASSERT AN EMERGENCY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the City defendants should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence. The action stemmed from a traffic accident involving a police vehicle and the city defendants were put on notice they would assert an emergency defense by the notice of claim. But the pre-accident police communications were not preserved:

Defendants had an obligation to preserve the pre-accident audio recordings at the time they were destroyed because the Police Department (NYPD) internal report and plaintiff’s notice of claim, which attached the public police accident report, put defendants on notice that they would likely assert an emergency operation defense. Therefore, pre-accident audio communication between the dispatcher and the NYPD vehicle or officers involved in the accident should have been preserved in case it was needed for future litigation … . Under the circumstances presented, the imposition of an adverse inference charge would be an appropriate sanction … . Sanchez v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01970, First Dept 3-19-20

March 19, 2020

Negligence

WATER CAP IN A SIDEWALK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a quarter to half inch depression where a water cap was located in a sidewalk was a trivial defect and therefore could not be the basis of a slip and fall action:

… [T]he alleged defect on which plaintiff tripped was trivial and nonactionable as a matter of law based on the characteristics and surrounding circumstances … . The water cap was a quarter to half of an inch below the surface of the sidewalk and the photographic evidence shows no defects in the water cap and surrounding sidewalk. Furthermore, plaintiff never attributed the cause of the accident to any broken or cracked cement or inadequate lighting … . Rivera v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01698, First Dept 3-12-20

March 12, 2020

Civil Procedure, Foreclosure

DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this foreclosure action did not waive his right to seek dismissal of the complaint by participating in a settlement conference. The plaintiff bank had abandoned the action:

CPLR 3215(c) states that “if [a] plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned…upon its own initiative or on motion.” The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not discretionary, and a claim for which a default judgment is not sought within the requisite one-year period will be deemed abandoned … . Notwithstanding, a claim will not be deemed abandoned if the party seeking a default judgment provides sufficient cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed (CPLR 3215[c]). Here, plaintiff waited almost three years to seek a default judgment, and it failed to provide sufficient cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed. As such, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as abandoned.

Plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived his right to seek dismissal pursuant to 3215(c) because he participated in the settlement conferences is equally unavailing. Although a party may waive it rights under CPLR 3215(c) “by serving an answer or taking any other steps which may be viewed as a formal or informal appearance”…, defendant’s participation in settlement conferences did not constitute either a formal or an informal appearance “since [he] did not actively litigate the action before the Supreme Court or participate in the action on the merits” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 01693, First Dept 3-12-20

March 12, 2020

Evidence, Municipal Law, Negligence

ICE ON SIDEWALK MAY HAVE PRE-EXISTED RECENT SNOW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the ice on which plaintiff slipped and fell pre-existed the recent snow fall. Plaintiff slipped and fell at around 7:30 am and, pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code, defendant had until 11 am to clear the recent snow (storm in progress rule):

Because it snowed overnight, defendant had until 11 a.m. to clear any fresh snow and ice … . However, an issue of fact exists regarding whether the ice on which plaintiff slipped was preexisting. Plaintiff testified and submitted witness affidavits to the effect that the ice was dirty and trod upon, and had been present for days … .

Moreover, while defendant submitted certified climatological records from Central Park in reply and in opposition to plaintiff’s cross motion, defendant cannot remedy a fundamental deficiency in its moving papers with evidence submitted in reply … , although they may be considered in opposition to plaintiff’s cross motion. In any event, the records show that the temperatures remained below or only slightly above freezing during much of the six days after defendant asserts that the last snow fall occurred, and defendant offers only speculation that such temperatures would have melted previous accumulations of snow and ice. Ruland v 130 FG, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01558, First Dept 3-5-20

March 5, 2020

Negligence

$10.5 MILLION VERDICT FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE IN THIS PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF ASKED TO STIPULATE TO $3 MILLION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a decision which does not discuss the relevant facts, determined the $10.5 million verdict for conscious pain and suffering was excessive and ordered a new trial unless plaintiff stipulates to $3 million. Plaintiff’s decedent was crossing the street when she was struck by defendant’s van:

The jury’s finding that defendant was solely at fault for the decedent’s death is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence … . Plaintiff’s evidence established that the decedent was crossing the street with the right-of-way when she was struck by a van operated by defendant’s employee making a left turn. Defendant presented no evidence to rebut plaintiff’s evidence. Its argument that the decedent may have been crossing the street outside of the crosswalk is speculative, given that its employee did not see the decedent until after the accident … . “[T]he position of [the decedent’s] body after impact is not probative as to whether she was walking in the cross-walk prior to being struck” … . In light of this determination, we do not reach defendant’s arguments about the propriety of testimony elicited, and statements made by plaintiff’s counsel, about its hiring practices generally and its hiring of the driver involved in the accident specifically.

We find the award for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering excessive to the extent indicated … . Martinez v Premium Laundry Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01557, First Dept 3-5-20