You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

PLAINTIFF RENTED DEFENDANT’S COTTAGE AND WAS INJURED WHEN THE DECK COLLAPSED; PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON RES IPSA LQUITUR AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WHO CONSTRUCTED THE DECK SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; A PROPERTY OWNER HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO THE PUBLIC TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT A PROPERTY OWNER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s causes of action based upon res ipsa loquitur and vicarious liability for a contractor who constructed the deck should have survived a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff rented a cottage from defendant. While plaintiff was on the deck, it collapsed:

In New York, in order to establish liability under that doctrine, the plaintiff must establish that the event was: “(1) of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) . . . caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; [and] (3) . . . not . . . due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff”…. . “The exclusive control requirement . . . is that the evidence must afford a rational basis for concluding that the cause of the accident was probably such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it” … .. “The purpose is simply to eliminate within reason all explanations for the injury other than the defendant’s negligence” … . …

“Generally, a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . The “most commonly accepted rationale” for that rule is that “one who employs an independent contractor has no right to control the manner in which the work is to be done and, thus, the risk of loss is more sensibly placed on the contractor” … . There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule. “A party may be vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor in performing [n]on-delegable duties . . . arising out of some relation toward the public or the particular plaintiff” … . To determine whether a nondelegable duty exists, the court must conduct “a sui generis inquiry” because the court’s conclusion rests on policy considerations … . Although “[t]here are no clearly defined criteria for identifying duties that are nondelegable[,] . . . [t]he most often cited formulation is that a duty will be deemed nondelegable when the responsibility is so important to the community that the employer should not be permitted to transfer it to another” … . Here, we conclude that defendant owes a nondelegable duty to the public to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition … , and thus that defendant failed to establish as matter of law that she may not be held liable for the actions of her independent contractor … . McGirr v Shifflet, 2022 NY Slip Op 04831, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was injured when the deck of the cottage rented from defendant collapsed. Plaintiff’s causes of action based on res ipsa loguitur and vicarious liability for the contractor who built the deck should not have been dismissed. There was a question of fact whether defendant had a nondelegable duty to the public to keep the premises safe, an exception to the general rule that a property owner is not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of an independent contractor.

 

,

THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED UNDER DURESS AND WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined the postnuptial agreement was not signed under duress and was not unconscionable:

Initially, we conclude that the court erred insofar as it held that plaintiff signed the 2017 agreement under duress as a result of defendant’s emotional abuse. An agreement is voidable on the ground of duress “when it is established that the party making the claim was forced to agree to it by means of a wrongful threat precluding the exercise of his [or her] free will” … . Generally, “the aggrieved party must demonstrate that threats of an unlawful act compelled his or her performance of an act which he or she had the legal right to abstain from performing” … . “[T]he threat must be such as to deprive the party of the exercise of free will” … . Here, even accepting as true plaintiff’s allegations that defendant persistently urged him to sign the 2017 agreement and threatened to tell the parties’ children of plaintiff’s wrongful actions in the past, such conduct did not amount to any unlawful acts on the part of defendant sufficient to constitute duress … .

… [P]laintiff failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the 2017 agreement was unconscionable. “An agreement is unconscionable if it is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … . The fact that defendant was represented by counsel but plaintiff was not is a factor for the court to consider, but is not dispositive … . As relevant here, in the 2017 agreement each party waived his or her rights in the other party’s separate property, which was defined in that agreement. … . …[T]he parties waived any right to receive maintenance. … Plaintiff … signed … three postnuptial agreements during the course of the marriage, and the testimony of both parties revealed that the parties conducted their finances in accordance with the terms of the agreements. … [I]t cannot be said that the 2017 agreement was such that it would “shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any [person] of common sense” … . Campbell v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 04875, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: This decision includes concise descriptions of the criteria for determining whether a postnuptial agreement was signed under duress and whether the agreement is unconscionable.

 

,

THE CELL PHONE RECORDS OF PLAINTIFF-DRIVER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL POSSIBLE USES OF THE CELL PHONE WHICH ARE NOT REVEALED BY THE RECORDS; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE CELL PHONE TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS USING IT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this traffic accident case were entitled to access to plaintiff-driver’s (Farrell’s) cell phone to determine whether the phone was being used at the time of the accident. There are certain uses of the phone which were not revealed by the cell phone records already provided to defendants:

Although the cell phone records subsequently obtained from the service provider established that Farrell was not talking on his phone at the time of the accident, they did not indicate whether he opened or sent text messages during the relevant time period. On the phone used by Farrell, texts were sent as encrypted “iMessages” that do not show up on phone records. Moreover, the phone records did not indicate whether Farrell was using any applications on his phone, such as Snapchat or Facebook. * * *

Defendants “satisf[ied] the threshold requirement that the[ir] request [was] reasonably calculated to yield information that [was] ‘material and necessary’—i.e., relevant—” to issues involved in the action … . “The test is one of usefulness and reason” … . In support of the motion … defendants submitted evidence that Farrell was traveling at close to 80 miles per hour seconds before the accident, which occurred on a residential road near an elementary school. Defendants also submitted evidence that Farrell did not brake before colliding with the school bus. Evidence concerning whether Farrell was distracted before the collision is relevant to the issues involved in this negligence action, and defendants’ request for production of or access to his cellular phone is reasonably calculated to yield relevant information … , especially considering that Farrell is unable, due to his injuries, to provide any information regarding his activities in the moments before the accident … . Tousant v Aragona, 2022 NY Slip Op 04871, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Here defendants were entitled to discovery of plaintiff-driver’s cell phone to determine whether plaintiff was using it at the time of the traffic accident. Although defendants had already been provided with the cell-phone records, there are several uses of the phone which are not revealed by the records.

 

, , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY EACH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENDANT MEDICAL CENTER TO SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not obligated to provide the name of every negligent employee of the defendant Erie County Medical Center Corporation (ECMC) to survive summary judgment in this medical malpractice action:

Contrary to the court’s determination, plaintiff was not required to provide the name of every allegedly negligent actor engaging in conduct within the scope of employment for ECMC … inasmuch as ECMC was on notice of the claims against it based on the allegations in the amended complaint, as amplified by plaintiff’s bill of particulars to ECMC, noting failures and omissions by ECMC’s employees. Indeed, ECMC is in the best position to identify its own employees and contractors and, as the creator of decedent’s medical records, ECMC had notice of who treated decedent and of any allegations of negligence by its nursing staff.  Braxton v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04866, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff was not required to identify each allegedly negligent employee of the medical center to survive summary judgment.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS-EMPLOYEES SEEKING THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 220 ARE ENTITLED TO FULL SUPPLEMENTAL (FRINGE) BENEFITS, AS WELL AS WAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs-employees were entitled to full payment of their supplemental (fringe) benefits in this Labor Law 220 action seeking the prevailing wage for public works projects:

Plaintiffs are members of a class of employees who allege that defendant failed to pay them prevailing supplemental (or fringe) benefits for work they performed on various public works contracts. * * *

Pursuant to Labor Law § 220 (3) (b), contractors undertaking a public works project must provide their employees with supplemental benefits “in accordance with prevailing practices for private sector work in the same locality” … . Supplemental benefits are defined as “all remuneration for employment paid in any medium other than cash, or reimbursement for expenses, or any payments which are not ‘wages’ within the meaning of the law, including, but not limited to, health, welfare, non-occupational disability, retirement, vacation benefits, holiday pay[,] life insurance and apprenticeship training” (§ 220 [5] [b]). * * *

Consider, for example, a hypothetical contractor that fails to pay prevailing wages (as opposed to benefits) to its employees on a public works project, and then pays the shortfall in wages into a common fund out of which all of its employees are compensated, including those who are not prevailing wage workers. Due to the dilution of funds resulting from those funds also being paid to the nonprevailing wage workers, the employees who worked on the public works contracts would not receive the full wages they would be entitled to for their work on the public works project. Under that scenario, the contractor would clearly have failed to comply with Labor Law § 220 (3) (a), notwithstanding that the contractor paid the same amount in wages to a fund as it would have paid if the prevailing wage workers had been paid directly according to scale. We do not perceive any justification in law or logic for treating supplemental benefits differently from wages. Vandee v Suit-Kote Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04852, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: In an action pursuant to Labor Law 220 seeking the prevailing wage for public works projects, the employees are entitled to full compensation for supplemental (fringe) benefits, as well as wages.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CONVICTION UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE THEORY; DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED A FRIEND WHO WAS TO SELL COCAINE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF SHARED INTENT WAS TOO WEAK TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance under an accomplice theory. Defendant agreed to go with her friend who was going to sell cocaine. The majority concluded the evidence defendant was going to be compensated proved shared intent. The two dissenters found the evidence defendant was to be compensated was too weak:

Here, the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom establish that, two days before her arrest, defendant agreed that, in exchange for compensation, she would either drive or otherwise accompany the friend to complete a sale of cocaine. According to defendant’s testimony, the friend indicated that she wanted defendant to accompany her because they were friends and she did not want to be alone with the two people involved in the proposed drug transaction, i.e., the drug dealer and the ostensible buyer. * * *

From the dissent:

Here, the People’s theory at trial was that defendant intentionally aided her friend’s possession of drugs by agreeing to drive her friend to another city where the friend would engage in the sale of such drugs, and that defendant would return by bus. However, the evidence in this case, when considered in the light most favorable to the People …, established that defendant merely accompanied her friend. People v Lewis, 2022 NY Slip Op 04846, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: Here defendant accompanied a friend who was to sell cocaine, The majority held the evidence of shared intent, which included evidence defendant was to be compensated, proved shared intent. Two dissenters argued the evidence of shared intent was too weak to support the conviction.

 

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCIDENT—THE COLLAPSE OF A DECK—EVER HAPPENED IN THIS LABOR LAW 24O (1) ACTION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court  in this Labor Law 240(1) action, determined there were questions of fact about whether the accident (the collapse of a deck) ever happened at all:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention and the court’s determination, the assertion of defendant that an accident resulting from a collapse or dislodging of the deck as described by plaintiff and the foreman may not have occurred at all is not based on “speculation without factual support” … . Rather, defendant’s assertion is based on the supervisors’ firsthand observations of an intact deck on the morning after the alleged accident, coupled with the testimony of the foreman, which calls into question whether a repair of the deck could have been made before the supervisors’ inspection, from which a factfinder could permissibly draw the inference that the alleged collapse did not occur at all … . Hann v S&J Morrell, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04447, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Unusual Labor Law 240(1) case where Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion but the appellate court held there were questions of fact whether the accident—the collapse of a deck—ever happened.

 

, , ,

PETITIONERS SOUGHT FUNDS THE DECEDENT HAD TAKEN OUT OF THE CORPORATION AS CLAIMS ON DECEDENT’S ESTATE, ALLEGING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED ANEW WHEN THE DECEDENT ACKNOWELDGED THE DEBT IN A DEPOSITION; THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS TOLL IN THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW ONLY APPLIES TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE DEBT IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE PARTY TO BE CHARGED, NOT TO THE QUASI-CONTRACT ALLEGED BY PETITIONERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined decedent’s acknowledgement of a debt in a deposition did not start the statute of limitations anew because there was no written contract to which General Obligations Law 17-101 could apply:

In 2011, decedent removed funds from the corporate entity, and he later acknowledged that some of those funds belonged to petitioners. Decedent died in 2018 without returning the funds owed to petitioners. * * *

The tolling provision that the Surrogate relied on is General Obligations Law § 17—101. That provision states, in pertinent part, that “[a]n acknowledgment or promise contained in a writing signed by the party to be charged thereby is the only competent evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take an action out of the operation of the provisions of limitations of time for commencing actions under the civil practice law and rules.” Here, petitioners did not allege that they had a contract with decedent; rather, they alleged claims sounding in quasi-contract, which is “not [a] contract[] at all” … . Thus, General Obligations Law § 17—101, which applies only where there is “competent evidence of a new or existing contract,” does not apply here … . Matter of Reich, 2022 NY Slip Op 04446, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: In order to start the statute of limitations anew on a debt pursuant to General Obligations Law 17-101, the debt must be acknowledged in a writing signed by the party to be charged.

 

, ,

MOTHER WAS EXPERIENCING COVID-LIKE SYMPTOMS AND THE COURT RULES PROHIBITED HER ENTRY; HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court abused its discretion in denying mother’s request for an adjournment:

… [T]he court abused its discretion in denying her attorney’s request for an adjournment. The mother had not previously requested an adjournment, and there was no indication in the record that an adjournment would have adversely affected the child … . Further, the mother was experiencing COVID-like symptoms and, under the court’s own rules, she was prohibited from entering the courthouse … . We therefore vacate those parts of the order determining that the mother permanently neglected the subject child and terminating her parental rights … . Matter of Jiryan S., 2022 NY Slip Op 04514. Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Here mother was experiencing COVID-like symptoms and requested an adjournment. Court rules prohibited her entry into the building. Her request for an adjournment should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM BY PLAINTIFF’S COWORKER DURING A FIREARMS TRAINING SESSION FOR ARMORED-CAR GUARDS WAS WITHIN THE DEFENDANT COWORKER’S SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s exclusive remedy in this accidental shooting case was Workers’ Compensation. Plaintiff and defendant coworker were both armored-car guards attending a firearms training course required by their employer when plaintiff was shot. When plaintiff and defendant coworker were seated at a table waiting for the course to begin the coworker took out his loaded firearm and it discharged as he attempted to disassemble it. The bullet went through the table and struck plaintiff in the leg:

The record establishes that firearms were permitted in the classroom and that trainees would generally keep the weapons in a holster or a gun box but were prohibited from taking out and handling firearms in the classroom. Defendant was thus attending a mandatory firearms training course at which he was required to have the pistol for which he was seeking certification, the training was directly related to his job duties that involved carrying a firearm, he was permitted to have the firearm in the classroom, and he simply violated a safety rule by handling the firearm in the classroom, thereby causing it to accidentally discharge. Defendant’s violation of the safety provision “was not, in these circumstances, of such type or magnitude as to take . . . defendant out of the scope of his employment” … . In other words, defendant’s conduct constituted a simple lack of reasonable care, i.e., negligence … , and “[t]he Workers’ Compensation Law offers the only remedy for injuries caused by the coemployee’s negligence” … . Guida v Rivera Investigations, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04443, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: During a firearms training course required by plaintiff’s employer, a coworker negligently took out his loaded firearm which accidentally discharged, striking plaintiff. Because the coworker’s actions, although negligent, were within the scope of the coworker’s employment, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

 

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