You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Violation of an Industrial Code Provision Does Not Conclusively Establish Negligence in a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Fourth Department noted that the fact that an Industrial Code provision was violated does not establish negligence sufficient to support partial summary judgment: “Despite our conclusion that defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c), we reject plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ liability with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. A violation of an Industrial Code provision ‘does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant’s negligence’…”.   Whether there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c) turned on whether plaintiff was a member of an “excavation crew.” If he was not, then his proximity to the equipment which injured him violated the provision. If he was a member of an “excavation crew,” the provision was not violated.  The majority determined plaintiff was not a member of a “crew” because he was the only person there.  The two dissenting judges disagreed and argued plaintiff was a member of an “excavation crew” within the meaning of the provision. Vanderwall v 1255 Portland Ave. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03959, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

23-Week-old Child Who Was Born Alive and Lived for 2 1/2 Hours After Removal from Life-Support Was a “Person” Within the Meaning of the Manslaughter Statute

The Fourth Department determined the 23-week-old child delivered by cesarean section was a “person” within the meaning of the manslaughter statute.  The child’s mother was severely injured in a head-on collision with defendant’s vehicle and the child was delivered to save the mother’s life. The child was taken off life-support because of the high risk of cognitive and neurological deficits and died 21/2 hours later. The court, in essence, determined the child was a “person” because she was born alive.

The Penal Law provides that a defendant “is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when . . . [he or she] recklessly causes the death of another person” (§ 125.15 [1]). Furthermore, ” [p]erson,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive” (§ 125.05 [1]), and the Penal Law defines homicide as “conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks” (§ 125.00).

Defendant first contends that the evidence is not legally sufficient because, pursuant to the above statutory scheme, a child who is less than 24 weeks of gestational age is not a person. That contention is without merit. Penal Law § 125.00 uses the disjunctive “or” in defining who may be the victim of a homicide, and it is a well-settled rule of statutory interpretation that “[u]se of the conjunction or’ in a statute usually indicates that the language is to be construed in an alternative sense”… . Therefore, a victim who is born alive may be a person for the purposes of a homicide pursuant to section 125.00, regardless of whether he or she is less than 24 weeks of gestational age. People v Hardy, 2015 NY Slip Op 03961, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

Question of Fact Whether It Was Foreseeable Children Would “Ride” an Unsecured Gate Resulting in Injury

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether it was foreseeable that children would swing on an unsecured gate to a cemetery (open to the public). The seven-year-old plaintiff was injured while “riding the gate.” Although there is nothing inherently dangerous about an unsecured gate, knowledge that children played in the cemetery raised a question of fact whether injury to a child was foreseeable:

“It is beyond dispute that landowners . . . have a duty to maintain their properties in [a] reasonably safe condition” … . “Consistent with that duty, the degree of care to be exercised must take into account the known propensity’ of children to roam and climb and play’ ” … . Indeed, “New York State courts have recognized the special propensities of children and the prevailing social policy of protecting them from harm’ . . . and have not deprived them of a right to compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of third parties . . . solely on account of their misuse of an instrument found on the defendant’s premises” … . “What accidents are reasonably foreseeable, and what preventive measures should reasonably be taken, are ordinarily questions of fact” … .

* * * “[A]t least once it is known that children commonly play around . . . an artificial structure [such as the gate], their well-known propensities . . . to climb about and play’ . . . create a duty of care on the part of a landowner to prevent foreseeable risks of harm that might arise out of those activities” … .

Given that, “as a matter of law, [ riding’ a gate] is not such an extraordinary’ form of play as to break the causal connection between the dangerous condition . . . and plaintiff’s injuries,” we conclude that there is a triable issue of fact whether “[i]t was a natural and foreseeable consequence of defendant’s failure to effectively secure the [gate] against access that young children would play [on it],” thereby resulting in injury … . Charles v Village of Mohawk, 2015 NY Slip Op 03975, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Re: False Arrest and False Imprisonment—Allegations Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause Action

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment properly survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action: “

Although liability for false arrest and false imprisonment generally will not be imposed where a civilian complainant merely furnishes information to law enforcement authorities rather than taking ” an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ . . . with the intent that [the] plaintiff be confined” …, we conclude that the complaint and plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion here sufficiently allege that defendant’s employees made false statements to investigators with the intent of having plaintiff be arrested and confined … . Harrison v Samaritan Med. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 03971, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

1/2 to 3/4 Inch Defect in Sidewalk Not Trivial As a Matter of Law

In denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the 1/2 to 3/4 defect in the sidewalk (which extended across two adjoining slabs) where plaintiff tripped and fell was trivial, the Fourth Department explained the relevant criteria: “[W]hether a dangerous or defective exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . “[T]here is no minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . Although “in some instances . . . the trivial nature of the defect may loom larger than another element[,] . . . [a] mechanistic disposition of a case based exclusively on the dimension of the [pavement] defect” is inappropriate … . Thus, a determination whether a particular defect is actionable requires examination of “the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” … . Greco v City of Buffalo, 2015 NY Slip Op 03966, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Attorney-in-Fact Used His Power to Create a Gift (by Deed) to Himself and/or Third Parties—Deed Declared Null and Void

The Fourth Department determined the deed purporting to transfer a life estate to the attorney-in-fact was null and void. Essentially, the attorney-in-fact used his power to make a gift to himself and/or third parties, which created an unrebutted presumption of impropriety:

It is well settled that “[a] power of attorney . . . is clearly given with the intent that the attorney-in-fact will utilize that power for the benefit of the principal” … . “The relationship of an attorney-in-fact to his principal is that of agent and principal . . . and, thus, the attorney-in-fact must act in the utmost good faith and undivided loyalty toward the principal, and must act in accordance with the highest principles of morality, fidelity, loyalty and fair dealing’ . . . Consistent with this duty, an agent may not make a gift to himself or a third party of the money or property which is the subject of the agency relationship” … . “In the event such a gift is made, there is created a presumption of impropriety [that can] be rebutted [only] with a clear showing that the principal intended to make the gift” …, or that the gift was in the principal’s best interest … . Borders v Borders, 2015 NY Slip Op 04022, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Injury While Trying to Pick Up a Fallen 3000 Pound Roll of Paper Was a Foreseeable Consequence of an Alleged Equipment Defect Which Caused the Roll to Fall

The Fourth Department determined the summary judgment motion of the defendants—manufacturers and modifiers of a pallet truck—was properly denied.  The complaint alleged the pallet truck and the roll cradle with which the pallet truck was modified were defective, causing a 3000 pound roll of paper to fall off the truck.  Plaintiff was severely injured while trying to lift the fallen roll.  The defendants’ arguments that any defects in the pallet truck and roll cradle were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the attempt to pick up the fallen roll was the superseding cause of the injuries, were rejected. The court determined the cause of the injury was within the class of foreseeable hazards associated with a fallen roll and the risk of the intervening act (lifting the fallen roll) was the same risk that renders the actor negligent:

“As a general rule, the question of proximate cause is to be decided by the finder of fact, aided by appropriate instructions” … . Where the cause of an accident is “within the class of foreseeable hazards that [a] duty exists to prevent, the [defendant] may be held liable, even though the harm may have been brought about in an unexpected way” … . We conclude that the hazard that caused plaintiff’s injury, i.e., the movement of the roll while it was being placed back in an upright position, was “within the class of foreseeable hazards” associated with a roll falling off the allegedly defective pallet truck …, and thus a jury “could rationally [find] that . . . there was a causal connection between [defendants’ alleged] negligence and plaintiff’s injuries” … . We thus reject the contention of defendants that the falling roll merely “furnished the occasion” for plaintiff’s accident.

We also reject the contention of defendants that the actions of plaintiff and his coworkers in attempting to upright the roll were a superseding cause of plaintiff’s injuries. “An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent” … . As noted above, the risk of the roll falling while being uprighted is the same risk underlying plaintiffs’ allegations of negligence, and we conclude that the actions of plaintiff and his coworkers were not “of such an extraordinary nature” as to relieve defendants of liability … . Ard v Thompson & Johnson Equip. Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03985, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

Reports by Attorneys Which Relate to an Insurer’s Decision to Accept or Reject a Claim Are Discoverable—Reports by Attorneys Made After the Claim Is Rejected Are Not Discoverable

The Fourth Department determined the records generated by attorneys which related to an insurer’s decision whether to accept or reject a claim were discoverable as records made in the regular course of business—even if the records relate in part to potential litigation.  Records generated by attorneys after the claim was denied are privileged and not discoverable:

“It is well settled that [t]he payment or rejection of claims is a part of the regular business of an insurance company. Consequently, reports which aid it in the process of deciding which of the two indicated actions to pursue are made in the regular course of its business’ ” … . “Reports prepared by . . . attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject a claim are thus not privileged and are discoverable . . . , even when those reports are mixed/multi-purpose’ reports, motivated in part by the potential for litigation with the insured” … . Here, the documents submitted to the court for in camera review constitute multi-purpose reports motivated in part by the potential for litigation with plaintiff, but also prepared in the regular course of defendant’s business in deciding whether to pay or reject plaintiff’s claim, and thus plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of those documents.  Lalka v Aca Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 03995, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

Whether the Insurer Is Obligated to Indemnify the Driver Turns on Whether the Driver Acted Intentionally When His Vehicle Struck the Rear of Decedent’s Vehicle—-There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Incident Was an Accident or the Result of Intentional Conduct

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the striking of decedent’s car from behind was intentional or accidental.  If the rear driver acted intentionally, his insurer had no duty to indemnify the rear driver. The court explained the terms “accidental” and “intentional” in this context:

“In deciding whether a loss is the result of an accident, it must be determined, from the point of view of the insured, whether the loss was unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” … . We must look to the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action, but may also consider extrinsic facts … .

Insurable ” [a]ccidental results can flow from intentional acts’ ” … . On the other hand, “when the damages alleged in the [underlying] complaint are the intended result which flows directly and immediately from [the insured’s] intentional act, . . . there is no accident, and therefore, no coverage” … . “[M]ore than a causal connection between the intentional act and the resultant harm is required to prove that the harm was intended” … . The exclusion for an intentional injury, however, will apply where the injuries are ” inherent in the nature’ of the wrongful act”… . Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Ellis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04011, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

County Department of Human Services Was Entitled to a Hearing On Whether It Should Be Held In Contempt for Failing to Place a Person In Need of Supervision In Foster Care

The Fourth Department determined the County Department of Human Services should not have been held in contempt without a hearing for failing to return the respondent (a person in need of supervision) to foster care.  The Department had raised a defense, i.e., the Department had tried but was unable to place the respondent, and was therefore entitled to a hearing. Matter of Andrew B., 2015 NY Slip Op 03999, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

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