You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined conflicting evidence about the presence of liquid on a stairway precluded summary judgment in this slip and fall case:

Plaintiff testified that on the day of the accident (Thanksgiving) she took the stairs down from the third floor and they were dry. This was sometime between 11:30am and noon that day. When she returned some twenty minutes later, sometime between 11:50 a.m. and 12:20 p.m., plaintiff walked up the same flight of stairs. On her way up, she noticed there was some liquid or water on the steps and she sidestepped the puddle. Later that day, at 3 p.m., plaintiff took the same flight of stairs a third time, this time with her son. Plaintiff testified that as she walked down the stairs at 3 p.m. she slipped and fell. Her testimony is that she slipped on water or some liquid substance that had no smell and that it was in the same location on the stairs where she had previously observed a puddle earlier that afternoon.

Defendant denies that it had actual notice of the condition alleged. Defendant’s building caretaker testified that she inspected the staircase twice that day, following an established schedule. Her first inspection was at approximately 8:20 a.m. and her second inspection was at 12:30 p.m.. The caretaker denied having seen any liquid or water on the steps either time and defendant also contends no one made any complaints about a wet condition on the stairs that day.

The conflicting testimony as to whether or not there was water on the steps at the time the caretaker’s second inspection implicates issues of credibility. If, as plaintiff claims, there was water on the steps at or shortly before 12:30 p.m., when the caretaker did her second inspection, then defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that a dangerous condition existed but, nevertheless, failed to remedy the situation … . The evidence submitted by defendant was not sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that defendant did not have actual notice of the allegedly hazardous condition prior to plaintiff’s fall … . Capers v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03749, First Dept 5-24-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/ACTUAL NOTICE  (SLIP AND FALL, CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRWAY (SLIP AND FALL, CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))

BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell on a crack in the stairway. A 2012 building inspection report stated that the stairway needed repair. And the defendant submitted only the building’s general cleaning routine:

The record shows that defendant failed to demonstrate that it lacked actual notice of the stairway defect, since an April 2012 building inspection report states that the property’s ramps, steps and railing required repair. Defendant also failed to demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged defect, because it submitted evidence only as to the building’s general cleaning routine, and failed to show when the stairway had last been inspected prior to the accident … .

In light of defendant’s failure to meet its initial burden to establish that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the defective condition of the stairway, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to establish how long the condition was in existence … . Javier v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03736, First Dept 5-24-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, (BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))/ACTUAL NOTICE (BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRWAY (SLIP AND FALL, BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY (FIRST DEPT))

ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed because the accident, tripping over a pile of sand on ground level, did not involve an elevation-related risk. The Labor Law 241 (6) and 200 causes of  action should have been dismissed because the defendants (subcontractors USRC and A-Deck) did not exercise control over the plaintiff, the area or the work:

… [T]he Labor Law § 241(6) claim should be dismissed because neither USRC nor A-Deck may be held liable under that statute. “Labor Law § 241(6) does not automatically apply to all subcontractors on a site or in the chain of command'” … . “Rather, for liability under the statute to attach to a defendant, a plaintiff must show that the defendant exercised control either over the plaintiff, the specific work area involved or the work that gave rise to the injury” … . Here, there is no evidence that either USRC or A-Deck exercised any control over the plaintiff, the specific work area involved or the work that gave rise to plaintiff’s injury.

The Labor Law § 200 claim should also be dismissed as neither USRC nor A-Deck may be held liable under that statute. “Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workmen with a safe place to work” … . “An implicit precondition to this duty to provide a safe place to work is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition”  … . Here, there is no evidence that either USRC or A-Deck had the authority to control the activity that brought about plaintiff’s injury. Adagio v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03744,  First Dept 5-24-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SUBCONTRACTORS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

THE CASE INVOLVES A NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the case, which was affected by a 2017 Court of Appeals decision, needed to be sent back for more fact-finding.  The Court of Appeals case, Carlson v American Intl. Group, Inc. (30 NY3d 288 [2017]), held that the timely disclaimer provisions of New York Insurance Law 3240 (d)(2) applied to insureds located in New York, which was defined to include insureds with a “substantial business presence” in New York.

Everest [the insurer successfully argued in Supreme Court that] it had no duty to defend or indemnify because section 3240(d)(2) applies only to insurance policies “issued or delivered” in New York. Everest argued that it is a New Jersey insurer and that it issued the policy to East Coast, a New Jersey company, and that therefore the policy was not “issued or delivered” in New York. …

Supreme Court, relying upon Carlson v American Intl. Group., Inc., (130 AD3d 1477 [4th Dept 2015]) [reversed by the Court of Appeals], … granted Everest’s cross motion, holding that because the policy was issued and delivered outside of New York State, the timeliness requirements of § 3240(d)(2) did not apply. …

… [T]he first prong of [the Court of Appeals decision in] Carlson was satisfied in this case. The risks covered under the Everest policy include the Queensboro Plaza project, which is located in New York State. However, we find that the record is not sufficiently developed for us to decide whether East Coast [the insured company] had a substantial business presence in New York under the Court of Appeals’ decision in Carlson. * * *

Because the Carlson Court did not set forth a specific definition of substantial business presence, and because the record is insufficiently developed concerning East Coast’s business presence in New York, we remand to allow the parties to develop the record and give Supreme Court an opportunity to meaningfully review the case in light of Carlson. Vista Eng’g Corp. v Everest Indem. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03730, First Dept 5-24-18

INSURANCE LAW (THE CASE INVOLVES A  NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, THE CASE INVOLVES A  NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT))

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress items taken from his person should have been granted because the sequence of events which would have legitimized the search was not proven at the hearing:

… [W]e agree with the People that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant based on the detective’s report that he saw a possible drug transaction in which a Hispanic man later identified as defendant, who was wearing a black leather jacket, handed a bag containing two small white objects to another man before walking away, in close temporal and spatial proximity to defendant’s apprehension … . However, this information did not establish probable cause to arrest and search defendant. The detective did not testify that he observed anything that appeared to be money being exchanged or handled by either of the two men, that there was anything furtive about their behavior aside from the sheer brevity of their encounter, or that the area was particularly drug prone … .

When the detective recovered a bag containing drugs after the apparent buyer discarded it, this clearly raised the level of suspicion to probable cause. However, the nontestifying officers had detained defendant based only on the information known at the time of the initial radioed report. The People’s assertion that the search occurred after the testifying detective made a confirmatory identification of defendant is unsupported by the record. In fact, the detective could not specify when the search occurred, or when he learned about it, and the People did not call any witnesses to testify about the nature and timing of the search based on personal knowledge. People v Ayarde, 2018 NY Slip Op 03750, First Dept 5-24-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP, SEARCH, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/STREET STOPS (SEARCH, SEARCH, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (STREET STOPS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

,

AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD EXERCISED THEIR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEGUN EXERCISING HER PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE PEOPLE TO BELATEDLY MAKE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined it was reversible error to allow the People to belatedly exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror (Mrs. C) after the People had indicated the chosen jurors were acceptable and the defense attorney had started exercising her peremptory challenges:

“The right of peremptory challenge given to an accused person is a substantial right,” and the order in which peremptory challenges are made “is matter of substance” “intended for the benefit of the defendant”… . The statute governing the order for peremptory challenges is not a “mere rule of procedure,” but is “a right secured to the defendant” … . The requirement that the People make peremptory challenges first “is imperative,” and violation of that rule is “a substantial, and not a mere technical error” … . …

The People here had completed their peremptory challenges for the round, and expressly told the court that the remaining prospective jurors, including Ms. C., were acceptable. It was only while defense counsel was making her peremptory challenges that the People sought to belatedly challenge Ms. C. Under these circumstances, the court’s decision to allow the challenge and excuse the juror constitutes reversible error .. . Although the People contend that there was no bad faith in their belated request to exercise the peremptory challenge, CPL 270.15(2) does not contain an exception for good faith. Nor has the Court of Appeals recognized a good faith exception in its decisions strictly construing the statute. People v Robinson, 2018 NY Slip Op 03731, First Dept 5-24-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD EXERCISED THEIR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEGUN EXERCISING HER PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE PEOPLE TO BELATEDLY MAKE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD EXERCISED THEIR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEGUN EXERCISING HER PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE PEOPLE TO BELATEDLY MAKE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT))/PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD EXERCISED THEIR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEGUN EXERCISING HER PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE PEOPLE TO BELATEDLY MAKE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT))

BACKING INTO A PARKED CAR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHEN THE PARKED CAR WAS PUSHED INTO HIM, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a case remitted after reversal by the Ct. of Appeals, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this vehicle accident case. Plaintiff was injured when a sanitation truck, which was backing up, slid on ice and hit a parked car. which in turn struck plaintiff. Initially the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied because the plaintiff did not demonstrate freedom from comparative fault. The Ct. of Appeals reversed, holding that plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to be entitled to summary judgment.  On remittal the First Department held that striking a parked vehicle is prima facie evidence of negligence and plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was granted:

It was Ramos’s [the driver] and Carter’s [the employee guiding the driver] responsibility to take into account weather and road conditions and to tailor their actions accordingly to avoid collisions … . The record demonstrates that the truck hit the parked car either because Ramos reacted to an abrupt hand signal from Carter and hit the brakes while he was driving on ice, causing a skid he could not abate, or because Ramos failed to adequately respond to Carter’s directives. Whether there were chains on the tires or not, defendant’s employees were obligated to maintain control of the truck and to avoid collisions with parked cars while backing up, and were negligent in failing to do so … . Rodriguez v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03634, First Dept 5-22-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BACKING INTO A PARKED CAR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHEN THE PARKED CAR WAS PUSHED INTO HIM, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BACKING INTO A PARKED CAR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHEN THE PARKED CAR WAS PUSHED INTO HIM, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/PARKED CARS (NEGLIGENCE, BACKING INTO A PARKED CAR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHEN THE PARKED CAR WAS PUSHED INTO HIM, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, determined that the NYC Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) acted rationally when it included two buildings among 13 others designated as a landmark, called the First Avenue Estate or FAE historic landmark. The petitioner wanted to destroy the two buildings and construct condominiums, an action prohibited by the landmark designation. The First Department further held that the landmark designation was not an unconstitutional taking. The opinion is extensive and detailed and cannot be fairly summarized here. Matter of Stahl York Ave. Co., LLC v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03653, First Dept 5-22-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, LANDMARKS, THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT))/LANDMARKS (THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LANDMARKS,  THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiffs’ cause of action for conversion should not have been dismissed and the cause action for fraud in the inducement was based upon non-actionable future conduct or events and non-actionable opinion. Plaintiffs hired defendant for extensive renovation work. Plaintiffs terminated the contract based upon defendant’s allegedly fraudulent requests for payment which were not used for the claimed purposes. When plaintiffs terminated the contract they demanded the return of $400,000 of the $840,000 they had paid. Defendant returned only about $85,000 and did not provide an accounting:

When plaintiffs terminated the contract mid-construction and demanded a return of $400,000 of the $840,000 they had paid, defendant allegedly returned only $84,622.65, without providing an accounting, and allegedly diverted the balance of such monies to his personal use. These allegations sufficiently state a cause of action for conversion … .

Plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging fraud in the inducement was properly dismissed, as it is founded upon non-actionable promises of future conduct or events, rather than present fact … and non-actionable opinion of defendant as to his entity’s resources and capability of undertaking the luxury renovation work sought by plaintiffs … . Yablon v Stern, 2018 NY Slip Op 03650, First Dept 5-22-18

​CONTRACT LAW (DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT))/CONVERSION (DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT (DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT))

FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that, although the fall through an unguarded floor opening at a construction site was covered under Labor Law 240 (1), there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was able to tie off his harness. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shouldn’t have been granted:

“[A] fall through an unguarded opening in the floor of a construction site constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) only where a safety device adequate to prevent such a fall was not provided. A safety line and harness may be an adequate safety device for a person working over an open area or near an elevated edge” … . Here, the record demonstrates that although plaintiff was wearing a harness and lanyard at the time of the accident, triable issues exist as to whether static lines were in place for him to safely tie off. Maman v Marx Realty & Improvement Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03614, First Dept 5-17-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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