You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff worked for a company hired to renovate building space leased by defendant (Cayre). Cayre’s space was on the 41st and 42nd floors. The space where plaintiff was injured was on the 16th floor in an area used by plaintiff’s employer for work related to the renovation of Cayre’s space. Plaintiff’s thumb was injured when he was using an unguarded saw on the 16th floor. The court noted that a lessee is deemed an owner within the meaning of Labor Law 241 (6):

We find that there are disputed issues of fact concerning whether the 16th floor space qualifies as a construction area. … . …”[G]enerally, the scope of a work site must be reviewed as a flexible concept, defined not only by the place but by the circumstances of the work to be done. Thus, Labor Law § 241(6) extends to areas where materials or equipment are being readied for use, as opposed to areas where they are merely stored for future use” … . Here, although defendants contend that the 16th floor space is [plaintiff’s employer’s] permanent workshop, in fact, the 16th floor work space where the accident occurred belonged to 1407 Broadway [the net operating lessee], and the 41st floor location of the executive bathroom being renovated was owned by 1407 Broadway, and leased to Cayre. * * *

We … reject Cayre’s argument that … plaintiff’s accident does not come within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6) because he was engaged in the fabrication and transportation of materials to be used in connection with construction. As stated by the Court of Appeals, Labor Law § 241(6) covers industrial accidents that occur in the context of construction (Nagel v D & R Realty Corp., 99 NY2d 98). Indeed, Shields v General Elec. Co. (3 AD3d 715 [3d Dept 2004]) is instructive. There, the Court noted that “work that is an integral part of the construction contract’ and is necessitated by and incidental to the construction . . . and involve[s] materials being readied for use in connection therewith’ is construction work” … . Karwowski v 1407 Broadway Real Estate, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01422, First Dept 3-2-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION AREA (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT))

THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department upheld the declaratory judgment finding that defendant insurer does not have a duty to defend based upon the exclusion of coverage for antitrust violations. Despite the allegations in the complaint which colored the action as one for product disparagement, which would be covered, the complaint alleged antitrust violations:

The underlying lawsuit alleges, broadly, that plaintiff acquired and maintained its 90% market share of VHR (vehicle history report) sales by engaging in an anticompetitive scheme. Plaintiff contends that defendant owes it a defense in the suit because the suit alleges disparagement. It relies on the following allegations: “By contractually committing these two websites to include hyperlinks to Carfax VHRs and to exclude VHRs of any other provider, Carfax has stigmatized any listing without such a link in the eyes of consumers who infer that the absence means that the car has a blemished history.” “Carfax also utilizes its inflated revenues to disparage and falsely malign dealers in order to mislead consumers into believing its VHRs are necessary and accurate.”

These passing references to disparagement do not allege a “Wrongful Act” [within the meaning of the policy language].” They were made “only in the context of the anti-trust claims, i.e. , as legal jargon pertinent to anti-trust and not as a means of even arguably alleging a separate claim for libel, slander or product disparagement” … . Carfax, Inc. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 01409, First Dept 3-1-18

INSURANCE LAW (THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST DEPARTMENT))/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST DEPARTMENT))/ANTITRUST ((INSURANCE LAW, THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST DEPARTMENT))

SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suit by a general contractor (Aragon) and property lessee seeking indemnification for a settlement paid to defendant subcontractor’s (Port Richmond’s) injured employee (Brown), as well as the suit alleging the failure to procure insurance, should not have been dismissed. The court explained the relevant indemnification law:

It is well settled that “where an indemnitor does not receive notice of an action settled by the indemnitee, in order to recover reimbursement [for the settlement], [the indemnitee] must establish that [it] would have been liable and that there was no good defense to the liability”… . Conversely, “[w]here the indemnitor does receive notice of the claim against the indemnitee, . . . the general rule is that the indemnitor will be bound by any reasonable good faith settlement the indemnitee might thereafter make”… . As to notice, ” [i]t is sufficient that the party against whom ultimate liability is claimed is fully and fairly informed of the claim and that the action is pending with full opportunity to defend or to participate in the defense'” … . …

Applying these principles, we find that the motion court improperly dismissed the indemnification claim. The subcontract plainly requires indemnification for claims arising out of Port Richmond’s work on the construction project. On appeal, Port Richmond does not argue that Brown’s injuries did not arise from its work. Instead, Port Richmond contends that because the underlying action was dismissed against Aragon, plaintiffs cannot establish Aragon’s liability for those injuries. However, where notice is given, the indemnitee need not establish its own liability for the underlying claim … . There is no dispute that Port Richmond had notice of the underlying action as well as the settlement negotiations in this Court.  Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v Tower Natl. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 01401, Second Dept 3-1-18

INSURANCE LAW (SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (INSURANCE LAW, SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/SETTLEMENTS (INSURANCE LAW, INDEMNIFICATION, (SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the papers did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

…[T]he complaint should be dismissed as against defendant, without prejudice, because plaintiff failed to prove that it mailed the notices required by Real Estate Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1304 … . The affidavit by Diondra Doublin, submitted by plaintiff, failed to demonstrate a familiarity with plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures … . The fact that some of the RPAPL 1304 notices bear a certified mail number is also insufficient … . We further note that defendant submitted an affidavit denying that he had received any RPAPL 1304 notice … .

Plaintiff’s motion should be denied for the additional reason that the affidavit by defendant’s wife creates an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff delivered the notice required by RPAPL 1303 with the summons and complaint … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cogen, 2018 NY Slip Op 01413, First Dept 3-1-18

FORECLOSURE (COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff mother was entitled to the infant plaintiff’s foster care records in connection with her claim that SCO Family Services negligently certified the individual defendant as a foster parent, and failed to properly supervise the foster home:

Pursuant to Social Services Law § 372(1), SCO was required to maintain records while the children were in foster care. Those records are confidential, but are discoverable pursuant to article 31 of the CPLR (Social Services Law § 372[3]). The statutory confidentiality requirement is intended to protect the privacy of children in foster care and their natural parents … , not to prevent former foster children from obtaining access to their own records.

When a former foster child “seeks her own records, so she can further her own suit against the defendant custodian of those records, who would otherwise have unequal access to them”… , she is “presumptively entitled to her own records” and “only a powerfully compelling showing would justify the court in potentially restricting” her access to the records … .

In this case, the court properly undertook in camera review of the foster care records to ensure that no private information of nonparties would be disclosed. However, the court erred in determining that the identities of ACS caseworkers, mental health professionals and other professionals should be redacted. Plaintiffs sought access to those witnesses to determine whether they had any relevant knowledge, and SCO did not articulate any privacy interests of those professionals that would warrant redacting their names from the foster care records. K.B. v SCO Family of Serv., 2018 NY Slip Op 01400, Second Dept 3-1-18

FAMILY LAW (FOSTER CARE, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, FOSTER CARE, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (FAMILY LAW, FOSTER CARE,  ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/FOSTER CARE (DISCOVERY, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (DISCOVERY, FOSTER CARE RECORDS, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))

PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the prosecutor’s closing argument rendered an indictment count duplicitous by suggesting the robbery count could apply to either a cell phone or a bicycle (different victims). The indictment count charged robbery of the cell phone:

The indictment, as amplified by the bill of particulars, charged defendant in the first count with robbery in the second degree, for forcibly stealing one victim’s cell phone, and in the second count with criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, for possession of a bicycle, stolen from another victim, on which defendant attempted to flee the scene. In summation, the prosecutor repeatedly argued — in apparent response to defense counsel’s argument that the evidence showed that defendant abandoned the phone before striking one of his pursuers, and therefore that a robbery could not be established — that even if the court did not find that defendant used force to retain the phone, it could still find that he used force to retain the bicycle. Defense counsel objected to these arguments and the court overruled them.

We find that these arguments rendered the first count duplicitous by newly alleging that defendant was guilty under the first count if he forcibly stole either the phone or the bicycle (see CPL 200.30[1]). The lesser included offense of petit larceny, of which defendant was ultimately convicted, suffered from the same infirmity. People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 01416, First Dept 3-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (DUPLICITOUS, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/DUPLICITY (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s negligence action against a security company (US Security) hired by Kmart did not state a cause of action for tort liability stemming from a contract (Espinal criteria). Plaintiff was injured in a fight with a Kmart employee in a Kmart store. The First Department held that plaintiff was not a third party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and US Security, did not rely to his detriment on the performance of US Security’s duties, and US Security did not entirely supplant Kmart’s duty to secure the store:

Plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security, which contains a “No Third Party Beneficiaries” clause … .

Nor can a duty be imposed on U.S. Security on the ground either that plaintiff relied to his detriment on the continued performance of U.S. Security’s contractual duties or that U.S. Security had entirely displaced Kmart’s duty to secure its store … . Plaintiff’s affidavit says nothing about having knowledge of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security or about detrimental reliance on U.S. Security’s continued performance thereunder … .

As for entire displacement, while the written scope of U.S. Security’s services included “the protection of … customers … in the Premises,” the deposition testimony of the loss prevention manager at the relevant Kmart store makes it clear that, in actual practice, U.S. Security’s services at that store were limited to deterring shoplifting … . Furthermore, U.S. Security did not totally displace Kmart’s duty to secure its store, because Kmart retained supervisory authority over the security guards and required U.S. Security’s staff to complete training in accordance with its (Kmart’s) safety policies and procedures … . Santiago v K Mart Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01296, First Dept 2-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY (SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT LIABILITY, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/SECURITY COMPANIES (LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM, ESPINAL CRITERIA, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))

,

PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim based upon a fall from a ladder. The court noted that the property owner was liable even if the property owner was unaware the plaintiff had been hired by a tenant (here a deli, also a defendant). The deli owner had provided the A-frame ladder which moved side to side and fell to the ground. The court noted that the defendant owner’s opposition papers were entirely hearsay, which cannot defeat summary judgment:

Plaintiff’s fall from an unsecured ladder establishes a violation of the statute …  for which defendant property owner is liable, even if the tenant contracted for the work without the owner’s knowledge … . Plaintiff sufficiently identified the location of the deli at his deposition, and also stated that the deli owner offered him money to paint the sign.

In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The statements of the owner of the deli and the deli worker were unsworn and inadmissible as hearsay. It should be noted that in the over 2 ½ years since the statements were taken, defendant never attempted to obtain affidavits from these witnesses or attempted to depose them, proffering their statements only after plaintiff had moved for summary judgment. Indeed, in its responses to discovery requests, defendant affirmatively represented that it was “not presently in possession of any statements from witnesses to the accident.”

While hearsay statements may be offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, hearsay statements cannot defeat summary judgment “where it is the only evidence upon which the opposition to summary judgment is predicated” … . Gonzalez v 1225 Ogden Deli Grocery Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01280, First Dept 2-27-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))

LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was standing on suddenly moved:

Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his testimony that he was caused to fall to the ground when the unsecured ladder on which he was standing suddenly shifted and kicked out from underneath him … .

Defendants’ opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. None of coworkers who provided affidavits actually witnessed plaintiff fall from the ladder, and they did not contradict his testimony that the ladder suddenly moved. Although defendants also submitted an unsworn accident report containing a statement from a coworker that plaintiff lost his balance and fell, this did not contradict plaintiff’s consistent testimony that he fell because the ladder suddenly moved… .. Furthermore, defendants’ reliance on O’Brien v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (29 NY3d 27 [2017]) is misplaced because that case, which found an issue of fact about whether a slippery exterior staircase provided adequate protection to the plaintiff, left intact the presumption that Labor Law § 240(1) is violated where, as here, a ladder collapses or malfunctions for no apparent reason … . Rom v Eurostruct, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01262, First Dept 2-22-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff testified the ladder he was using was unsecured and damaged. The ladder wobbled causing plaintiff to fall

[Defendant’s] submission of an ambiguous affidavit from plaintiff’s supervisor was insufficient to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie showing. Notably, the supervisor did not address the fact that he was at the scene of the accident shortly after plaintiff fell, and provided only vague references to other available ladders, without addressing plaintiff’s testimony that other workers were using those ladders  … . Furthermore, [defendant’s] argument that questions of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident is unavailing given that [defendant] failed to make a showing that adequate safety devices were provided to plaintiff … . Pena v Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1, 2018 NY Slip Op 01255, First Dept 2-22-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY 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