You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The First Department determined defendant bus company’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged she slipped on an oily substance on the step of a bus. Plaintiff’s expert argued the handrails were inadequate, but the statutes and regulations cited related to buildings, not buses. Although the internal rules of defendant bus company required the driver to assist passengers off the bus, that rule exceeded the ordinary care standard and could not be the basis for liability. Ziman-Scheuer v Golden Touch Transp. of NY, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03124, 1st Dept 4-25-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (BUSES, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/BUSES (SLIP AND FALL, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/STANDARD OF CARE (INTERNAL RULES, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/INTERNAL RULES (NEGLIGENCE, STANDARD OF CARE, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED.

The First Department determined the flawed procedure leading to sentencing defendant as a second felony offender required remittal for resentencing:

​

… [D]efendant never admitted the prior felony conviction upon which his second violent felony adjudication was predicated, and the court never adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender. Moreover, there is no record evidence that the predicate felony statement was filed prior to sentencing, as required by CPL 400.15(2) … . Further, the record does not reflect that defendant was given a copy of the predicate felony statement, as CPL 400.15(3) requires. Thus, the record is devoid of any indication that defendant received adequate notice that the prior felony conviction in question would be used as the basis for enhancement of his sentence or had an opportunity to be heard as to the validity of that conviction … . The brief, incidental, logistical comments made by Supreme Court, the clerk and the prosecutor in defendant’s presence during the plea proceedings concerning the existence of a predicate felony statement are insufficient to constitute substantial compliance with CPL 400.15 requirements … . People v Traylor, 2017 NY Slip Op 03111, 1st Dept 4-25-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED)/SECOND FELONY ADJUDICATION (DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the $900,000 default judgment in this Labor Law action should not have been vacated. The court noted that it had the power to overrule Supreme Court, even in the absence of an abuse of discretion. It has been held that a defendant’s reliance on an insurance broker to handle a lawsuit, as argued here, is a valid excuse for a default. However defendant’s principal, Mr. Gjonaj, received, over the course of years, papers sent by plaintiff’s attorney which should have alerted him to fact that the lawsuit was progressing in defendant’s absence. The court further determined plaintiff’s installation of video cameras was a covered activity under the Labor Law and his falling from a ladder was therefore actionable:

​

… [Mr.  Gjonaj’s.] assertion in this case that he believed his broker was forwarding the paperwork to the appropriate insurance carrier was unreasonable in light of his conceded receipt of the summons and complaint, two motions for a default judgment, a letter from the court and a court decision reflecting a $900,000 judgment against him. Surely Mr. Gjonaj knew that if his insurance company had retained a lawyer to appear for defendants, he and his corporations would not have continued to receive legal documents directly from plaintiff’s attorney and the court for over three years. The fact that [the broker] kept assuring Mr. Gjonaj “that everything in this matter was under control and that the claim was being handled by the proper insurance company,” does not help to establish reasonableness, objective or otherwise, on the part of Mr. Gjonaj, who should have known that everything was not under control after years of receiving so many legal documents from plaintiff’s counsel relating to the same lawsuit. Gecaj v Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 03109, 1st Dept 4-25-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED. FALLING FROM A LADDER WHILE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED. FALLING FROM A LADDER WHILE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY)/VIDEO CAMERAS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED. FALLING FROM A LADDER WHILE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY)/INSURANCE LAW (DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED)/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Befeler) was a general surgeon and did not assert any knowledge of gastroenterology. His affidavit was not sufficient to raise a question of fact in the face of plaintiff’s gastroenterology experts:

​

Here, there is no indication that Dr. Befeler possessed the requisite background and knowledge to furnish a reliable opinion concerning the practice of gastroenterology … . While a gastroenterologist may well be qualified to render an opinion on a surgical procedure involving the gastrointestinal system, it cannot be said that a general surgeon is qualified to opine on any specialty simply because the specialist may eventually refer the patient for surgery. Indeed, Dr. Befeler averred only that his conclusion that both doctors “were negligent in failing to follow standard and accepted medical procedures” was based upon his “review of the above records, [his] education, years of training, and [his] forty year experience in the field of General Surgery.” Nowhere did the doctor set forth any experience in gastroenterology or detail the standard of care for that specialty. Bartolacci-Meir v Sassoon, 2017 NY Slip Op 03040, 1st Dept 4-20-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)

, ,

NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff raised a new theory in response to the summary judgment motion. The First Department held that the new theory could not be entertained by searching the record and therefore could not support the denial of summary judgment or an amended bill of particulars:

​

Once the defendants met their burden for summary judgment, plaintiff was obligated to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing with medical evidence demonstrating that the defendants departed from accepted medical practice … . Here, plaintiff failed to address the opinions of defendants’ experts or defendants’ prima facie showing that the result from the complicated, extensive double jaw surgery was anything but a reasonable result. Thus, there was no basis to preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants … . Instead, plaintiff proffered a new theory, based on the report of an expert otolaryngologist, who opined that Dr. Behrman had failed to take into account plaintiff’s primary immune deficiency in planning the surgery, that he should have initially consulted with an immunologist who would have performed testing before surgery, and that he failed to refer plaintiff after surgery to an ENT doctor, who would have consulted with an immunologist. Plaintiff’s expert asserted that these failures led to the development of an infection, which caused plaintiff’s hearing loss, numbness, and teeth misalignment.

It is axiomatic that a plaintiff cannot defeat a summary judgment motion that made out a prima facie case by merely asserting, without more, a new theory of liability for the first time in the opposition papers … . Since plaintiff’s opposition papers were insufficient absent this new theory of recovery, defendants’ summary judgment motion should have been granted … . Biondi v Behrman, 2017 NY Slip Op 03039, 1st Dept 4-20-17

NEGLIGENCE (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, with a concurring opinion, determined the trial judge properly granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial in this personal injury case because of the unacceptable behavior of defense counsel. Plaintiff alleged she was struck by a bus while crossing the street, injuring her back and knee. The jury found the defendant 70% at fault but found that the injuries were not permanent and awarded nothing for future pain and suffering. The First Department concluded the verdict was probably a compromise and the defense attorney’s conduct deprived plaintiff of a fair trial:

​

In ordering a new trial, the trial court concluded that defense counsel’s conduct was “so extreme and pervasive as to make it inconceivable that it did not substantially affect the fairness of the trial.” Also, such conduct “occurred in front of the jury, created a hostile atmosphere and persisted despite the court threatening to impose sanctions and to hold counsel in contempt.”

The court then cited the multiple instances of defense counsel’s misconduct: “frequent assertions of personal knowledge of facts in issue in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.4(d)(2)”; his many speaking objections, with one of them flagrantly misstating the law; his motion for a mistrial twice in front of a jury; his unfair and false denigration of Dr. Davy as not being a “real surgeon”; his pattern of interrupting and speaking over the court despite the court’s directions to stop; and his interruption of the trial by demanding that plaintiff’s counsel move a chart she was showing to the jury to accommodate his refusal to move from his seat. The court further noted that, although not reflected in the record, defense counsel would use a “sneering, denigrating tone” while cross-examining Dr. Davy and plaintiff’s other witnesses. The court also noted as not reflected in the record the “tone of voice” directed at plaintiff’s counsel, witnesses, and the court, or the “volume of his voice”; the court noted that it had admonished counsel “not to scream” on several occasions. The court continued that not fully reflected in the record was the extent to which defense counsel would continue talking after being directed to stop. Smith v Rudolph, 2017 NY Slip Op 02957, 1st Dept 4-18-17

 

ATTORNEYS (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/NEGLIGENCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

,

NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined New York law applied here where plaintiff and plaintiff’s employer, Nygard, a third-party defendant, are Canadian and further held plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was shocked by electric wires which were on the floor of the workplace:

​

​

To the extent, if any, Manitoba law, unlike New York law, might prohibit the third-party claims asserted by defendants (both domiciled in New York) against Manitoba-domiciliary Nygard, plaintiff’s employer, the availability of a third-party claim against plaintiff’s employer is governed by the law of the place of injury — here, New York — “where the local law of each litigant’s domicile favors that party, and the action is pending in one of those jurisdictions” … . The application of New York law on this issue is appropriate because this state, where the accident occurred, “is the place with which both [defendants and Nygard] have voluntarily associated themselves” … , and “comports with the reasonable expectations of [these] parties in conducting their business affairs” … .

​

Plaintiff was engaged in “construction” work at the time of the incident (Labor Law § 241[6]), and Owner’s attempt to isolate the activities in which plaintiff was involved at the moment of the incident ignores the general context of the work … . Further, the record established a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(4), which requires that workers who may come into contact with an electric power circuit be protected against electric shock “by de-energizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding such circuit by effective insulation or other means.” That plaintiff was electrically shocked, as confirmed by another Nygard International employee, demonstrated that the circuit was not de-energized, grounded, or guarded by effective insulation. Plaintiff also established that the violation of the provision was a result of negligence … . Owner’s contention that an issue of fact exists as to plaintiff’s comparative negligence is unavailing. Plaintiff testified that he had objected to having the temporary lighting work performed in the manner that it was done, and that Nygard International’s principal overruled him. The principal’s insistence that plaintiff perform the temporary wiring work, despite plaintiff’s objections, established negligence by Nygard, for which Owner is vicariously liable … . O’Leary v S&A Elec. Contr. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02888, 1st Dept 4-13-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/CHOICE OF LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)

PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE.

The First Department determined petitioner was entitled to a license to enter another’s property to make repairs on petitioner’s property (which was otherwise not accessible) but the respondent property owner was entitled to a license fee:

​

RPAPL 881 provides: “When an owner or lessee seeks to make improvements or repairs to real property so situated that such improvements or repairs cannot be made by the owner or lessee without entering the premises of an adjoining owner or his lessee, and permission so to enter has been refused, the owner or lessee seeking to make such improvements or repairs may commence a special proceeding for a license so to enter pursuant to article four of the civil practice law and rules. The petition and affidavits, if any, shall state the facts making such entry necessary and the date or dates on which entry is sought. Such license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires. The licensee shall be liable to the adjoining owner or his lessee for actual damages occurring as a result of the entry.”

“Although the determination of whether to award a license fee is discretionary, in that RPAPL 881 provides that a license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires,’ the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees”… . This is because ” the respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it . . . . Equity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access'” … . Matter of Van Dorn Holdings, LLC v 152 W. 58th Owners Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02905, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE)/LICENSE FEE (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE)

BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The First Department determined defendant bar (BR Guest’s) was not vicariously liable for an assault on plaintiff by a security guard (DiPaola), who was an independent contractor:

The record establishes that DiPaola, a security guard, was an independent contractor when the incident occurred … . The evidence shows that DiPaola was not on BR Guest’s payroll, did not receive health insurance or other fringe benefits, and that BR Guest contracted for his services as a security guard from defendant Presidium, LLC … .

The record reveals nothing more than general supervisory control, which cannot form the basis for imposing liability against BR Guest or Hanson, who was the vice president of BR Guest Inc., for plaintiff’s injuries sustained as a result of DiPaola’s assault … . The fact that BR Guest decided the number of security guards needed on a particular night and where on the premises the guards should be posted at any given time, and gave them instructions relating to the manner in which they performed their work does not render the security guards working at the premises special employees … . McLaughlan v BR Guest, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02906, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

INTENTIONAL TORTS (BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/ASSAULT (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/ASSAULT (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/SECURITY GUARDS  (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

,

ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY.

The First Department determined there was a question of fact about the meaning of an exclusion in a flood insurance policy. The policy excluded coverage for property in (FEMA) Flood Zone A. The plaintiff’s property was located in (FEMA) Flood Zone AE:

​

When it comes to exclusions from coverage, the exclusion “must be specific and clear in order to be enforced” … and ambiguities in exclusions are to be construed “most strongly” against the insurer … . As this Court has recognized, there are circumstances where extrinsic evidence may be admitted prior to an exclusion being strictly construed against an insurer … , and “[w]here [] ambiguous words are to be construed in the light of extrinsic evidence or the surrounding circumstances, the meaning of such words may become a question of fact for the jury” … .

Here, the language of FEMA’s flood zone regulations raises an issue of fact rendering the insurance policy’s exclusion of flood coverage ambiguous … . Heartland Brewery, Inc. v Nova Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 02908, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICY, ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY)/EXCLUSION (INSURANCE LAW, ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY)

​

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