You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

Scaffold, Safety Railing and Cross Braces Are Safety Devices

In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) action based upon plaintiff’s fall from a scaffold, the Fourth Department noted that a scaffold, safety railing and cross braces are safety devices:

We agree with defendants … that the scaffold itself and the safety railing and cross braces on it constitute safety devices, and that the evidence submitted by plaintiff raises an issue of fact whether the safety devices provided by defendants afforded him proper protection, or whether additional devices were necessary … .

Justice Whalen dissented, arguing that, under the circumstances of plaintiff’s work on the scaffold, the safety railing and cross railings were not adequate safety devices. Kuntz v WNYG Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., et al, 1382, CA 12-00986, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

Ice and Snow Accumulation of Floor of Building Constituted Negligence as a Matter of Law 

The Fourth Department determined a worker was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law 241 (6) based on a slip and fall on ice and snow.  The ice and snow had accumulated on the floor of a building where the worker was framing interior walls:

Plaintiff alleged that defendants were liable for his injury pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) based on their alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), which concerns slipping hazards arising from, inter alia, ice and snow. It is undisputed that there were in fact accumulations of ice and snow and that [defendant construction company] was made aware of that fact. Defendants presented no evidence in opposition to demonstrate that the floor was reasonably and adequately safe despite the violation (see § 241 [6]), and thus the court properly determined as a matter of law that defendants were negligent. Thompson v 1241 PVR, LLC, et al, 270, CA 12-01485, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

,

Falling Off X-Ray Table Raised Question of Fact

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact re: medical malpractice where decedent fell off an x-ray table when the attendant left the room to develop the x-rays:

Defendant failed to meet its “ ‘initial burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff[’s decedent] was not injured thereby’ ” … . With respect to decedent’s fall from the X ray table, defendant failed to present competent proof that it did not deviate from the applicable standard of care when the technician left the room to develop the X rays that had just been taken, with decedent still on the table.  Welsh, et al, v St Elizabeth Medical Center, 332, CA 12-01576, 4th Dept. 3-22-12

 

 

,

Housing for Actors and Theater Staff Deemed Tax-Exempt

The Fourth Department determined that the petitioner had demonstrated its property, which was used to house actors and staff for seasonal theaters and generated no income, met the criteria for tax-exempt property under Real Property Tax Law 420-a:

According to [the] director, the housing of actors and staff together promotes countless hours of volunteer work in the form of “running lines together, discussing creative ideas, working on wardrobes, [and] creating sets,” all of which further the purposes and mission of petitioner. That director also averred that the properties are not open to the public and create no income for petitioner. …. [W]e note that housing used to further an exempt purpose has been found tax exempt in numerous other contexts… .  Matter of Merry-Go-Round Playhouse, Inc. v Assessor of City of Auburn, et al, 268, CA 12-01797, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

,

Statute of Limitations to Reopen Tax Foreclosure Default Judgment Applies In Face of the Claim that Respondent Was Never Notified of the Proceeding

The Fourth Department determined the one month statute of limitations for a motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure applied even where the respondent asserts he or she was not notified of the proceeding:

We agree with petitioner, however, that respondent’s motion was untimely. “A motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure ‘may not be brought later than one month after entry of the judgment’ ” … . Here, the judgment of foreclosure was entered on March 31, 2010, and respondent did not move to vacate it until September 12, 2011, nearly 18 months after it was entered. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the statute of limitations set forth in RPTL 1131 applies even where, as here, the property owner asserts that he or she was not notified of the foreclosure proceeding … .  Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens …, 353. 12-01666, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

Charges Based On Information Learned by the Improper Opening of Inmate’s Mail Required Annulment of the Determination

The Fourth Department annulled a determination finding petitioner had violated inmate rules which was based entirely on the contents of the inmate’s mail (opened and read by prison authorities).  The Fourth Department wrote:

Pursuant to 7 NYCRR 720.4 (f) (2), the prison superintendent must request documentation from the person seeking authority to open incoming mail so as “to determine that there are sufficient grounds for reading the mail, that the reasons for reading the mail are related to the legitimate interests of safety, security, and order, and that the reading is no more extensive than is necessary to further th[o]se interests.” Here, the evidence presented at the hearing did not establish that the superintendent complied with the above mandate before authorizing the opening of petitioner’s mail. Because evidence that was admitted at the hearing was seized in contravention of respondent’s rules and regulations, the Hearing Officer’s determination based on that evidence “must be annulled and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s file”… . Matter of Singletary v Fischer, 167, TP 12-01564, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

,

Disorderly Conduct as a Family Offense Needn’t Occur in a Public Place

The Fourth Department determined that “disorderly conduct” as a family offense does not require the conduct to take place in public:

Contrary to respondent’s contention, petitioner met her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of disorderly conduct … . Although respondent’s conduct did not take place in public, section 812 (1) specifically states that, “[f]or purposes of this article, ‘disorderly conduct’ includes disorderly conduct not in a public place.” In addition, disorderly conduct may be committed when a person “recklessly creat[es] a risk” of annoyance or alarm through violent or threatening behavior. We thus reject respondent’s contention that the statute “requires more than a ‘risk.’ ”  Matter of McLaughlin v McLaughlin, 330, CAF 12-01556, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

 

,

Choice of Forum; Choice of Law

The Fourth Department determined a choice of forum clause must be enforced and noted the difference between choice of forum and choice of law:

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). According to the “Standard Terms and Conditions” of the agreement …, “[a]ny litigation arising in any way from this Agreement shall be brought in the Courts of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania having jurisdiction.”  That forum selection clause is “ ‘prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be[, inter alia,] unreasonable, unjust, [or] in contravention of public policy’ ” … 

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the enforcement of the forum selection clause does not contravene New York public policy … .

The “Standard Terms and Conditions” also provide that “[t]he laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall govern the validity of this Agreement, its interpretation and performance,” and plaintiff contends that the enforcement of the “limitation of legal liability” provision of the agreement pursuant to Pennsylvania law violates General Obligations Law §§ 5-322.1 and 5-324 and would thus contravene New York public policy. That contention, however, concerns choice of law, not choice of forum, and it may properly be raised before a court in the forum chosen by the parties in Pennsylvania … .“[O]bjections to a choice of law clause are not a warrant for failure to enforce a choice of forum clause” … .  Erie Insurance Company of New York, … v AE Design, Inc., 337, CA 12-01549, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

 

 

, , ,

Court’s Sua Sponte Transfer of a Zoning-Related Case to Another County Was Improper; The Denial of a Request for a Variance Does Not Affect Real Property within the Meaning of CPLR 507

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred in transferring a case to another venue sua sponte and in determining that an action seeking to annul the denial of a variance affected real property within the meaning of CPLR 507:

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul two determinations of respondent made in connection with petitioner’s application for an area variance from a provision of the Town of Whitestone’s Zoning Ordinance. The proceeding was commenced in Supreme Court, Onondaga County, and by …order …that court, sua sponte, transferred the proceeding to Supreme Court, Oneida County, pursuant to CPLR 507. We agree with petitioner that the court erred in transferring the proceeding sua sponte. CPLR 509 provides that the place of trial may be changed to another county “by order upon motion, or by consent.” CPLR 510 provides the grounds for the change of the place of trial, upon a motion. A court “is authorized to change venue only upon motion and may not do so upon its own initiative” …. Additionally, a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination denying a request for an area variance does not affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property, and thus the court erred in relying on CPLR 507 in transferring the proceeding.  Matter of Mimassi v Town of Whitestone Zoning Board of Appeals, 189, CA 12-01652, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

 

,

Procedure for Invalidation of a Stipulation to the Record

The Fourth Department noted the criteria for invalidating a stipulation to a record on appeal:

It is undisputed … that plaintiff stipulated to settle the record … prior to seeking leave to reargue or renew and has not sought to be relieved from his stipulation … .  Once plaintiff stipulated to the record on appeal, he was no longer entitled to move to settle the record or, indeed, to seek leave to reargue or renew a motion to settle the record that preceded the stipulation.  “Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” …, and plaintiff made no such showing here.  Hale v Meadowood Farms of Cazenovia, LLC, et al, 351, CA 12-01192, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy