You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION, LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined, re: plaintiff’s common law negligence cause of action, there was a question of fact whether defendants had constructive notice of a cracking concrete slap which collapsed. However plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed because no applicable provision of the Industrial Code was identified by the plaintiff:

… [T]he defendants submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, in which he stated that for up to 10 days prior to the accident, he observed that the place where the concrete eventually collapsed had “lines . . . indicating the breaking points.” Thus, by their own submissions, the defendants raised an issue of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the plaintiff’s fall to permit them to discover and remedy it … . …

In order to establish a Labor Law § 241(6) claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a specific and applicable provision of the Industrial Code … . Here, although the plaintiff’s bill of particulars alleged a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), it failed to identify any specific provision of the Industrial Code that the defendants allegedly violated … . Furthermore, in opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to allege a violation of any specific provision of the Industrial Code, and did not address the issue … . Grabowski v Board of Mgrs. of Avonova Condominium, 2017 NY Slip Op 01185, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION, LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NJEGLIGENCE (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED)

,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from the top of a boiler when a co-worker accidentally caused hot water and steam to escape from a valve. The jury found that the Labor Law 240(1) violation was not the proximate cause of the accident:

Here, the evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, demonstrated that the defendant failed to provide an adequate safety device to the plaintiff, and that this failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s fall. The fact that the plaintiff’s coworker bumped into the valves, which caused hot water and steam to pour onto the plaintiff and precipitated his fall, was not of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the defendant’s conduct that responsibility for the injury should not reasonably be attributed to it … . Moreover, in light of the statutory violation, even if the plaintiff were negligent in some respect, his comparative negligence would not bar liability under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Raia v Berkeley Coop. Towers Section II Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01243, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (CPLR 4401) (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)

PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).

The Second Department determined defendants’ summary judgment motion dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff was engaged in routine repair work:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while performing work on the air conditioning system in a building … . He allegedly fell while climbing over an “I-beam” that was used to support the air conditioning system. He commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

The defendants established, prima facie, that they were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by showing that the plaintiff’s work did not constitute erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . The defendants established that the work constituted merely routine maintenance of the air conditioning system … . Tserpelis v Tamares Real Estate Holdings, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01247, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))/MAINTENANCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))

ALLEGATIONS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from a fall from a ladder. Plaintiff did not demonstrate the ladder was defective or unsecured. [The decision explains in detail the criteria for Labor Law 200 liability and several substantive indemnification issues which are not summarized here.]:

“To establish liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries'” … . “A fall from a ladder, by itself, is not sufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 240(1). There must be evidence that the subject ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s own submissions demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to how the accident occurred, whether the ladder was inadequately secured, and whether the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Shaughnessy v Huntington Hosp. Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 01245, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LADDERS, ALLEGATIONS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALLEGATIONS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER)

SIDEWALK REPAIR TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WORK ON A STRUCTURE, I.E., A GAS MAIN, INJURY NOT WITHIN PURVIEW OF LABOR LAW 240 (1).

The Second Department determined the repair of a sidewalk damaged when a gas main was replaced did not fall within the reach of the Labor Law. Plaintiff was injured when a piece of the sidewalk fell from a backhoe. The court held that the sidewalk repair work was too far removed from the gas main replacement to trigger the Labor Law protections:

Supreme Court properly determined that, at the time of the accident, the injured plaintiff was not engaged in an enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240(1). That statute applies only to “the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” … . Significantly, the statute does not cover an injury occurring after an enumerated activity is complete … . While the plaintiffs urge that the injured plaintiff’s work was part of a larger project involving the replacement of the gas main, the record reflects that the gas main replacement work was performed by a completely different entity and had been completed well before the injured plaintiff commenced any work at the location. Neither the injured plaintiff nor his employer played any role in the replacement of the gas main, and the work performed by the injured plaintiff and his coworkers constituted a separate and distinct phase of the overall project that involved only the demolition and restoration of a sidewalk … . Accordingly, under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s work did not fall within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Davis v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01179, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SIDEWALK REPAIR TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WORK ON A STRUCTURE, I.E., A GAS MAIN, INJURY NOT WITHIN PURVIEW OF LABOR LAW 240 (1))/SIDEWALK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SIDEWALK REPAIR TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WORK ON A STRUCTURE, I.E., A GAS MAIN, INJURY NOT WITHIN PURVIEW OF LABOR LAW 240 (1))/STRUCTURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SIDEWALK REPAIR TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WORK ON A STRUCTURE, I.E., A GAS MAIN, INJURY NOT WITHIN PURVIEW OF LABOR LAW 240 (1))

HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the homeowner’s exception to Labor Law liability applied to the owner of the home (Kathleen) but not to the agent of the owner who supervised the work (Mervyn). Plaintiff fell from a scaffold:

More generally, “Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) apply to owners, contractors, and their agents” … . ” A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured'” … . “It is not a defendant’s title that is determinative, but the amount of control or supervision exercised” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish Mervyn’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action by demonstrating that he lacked the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work … . Specifically, the defendants submitted transcripts of the plaintiff’s two depositions, at which he testified that, in addition to visiting the site daily and telling the plaintiff what work to do, Mervyn provided and instructed him to use the allegedly defective scaffold and a safety belt to complete the work that led to his injury. Moreover, the plaintiff testified that his boss told him to follow Mervyn’s instructions, and there is no dispute on this record that Mervyn was listed as an insured on the plaintiff’s employer’s policy. …

To be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or the common law in a case such as this, where the claim arises out of the methods or means of the work, a defendant must have authority to supervise or control the work … . Here, the defendants established Kathleen’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against her, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . For the same reasons as those articulated above, however, the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden with respect to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against Mervyn … . Abdou v Rampaul, 2017 NY Slip Op 01169, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK)/HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK)/AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK)

INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION.

The Second Department determined the insurer (Global) did not demonstrate it was entitled to disclaim coverage based upon the noncooperation of the insured:

“An insurer who seeks to disclaim coverage on the ground of noncooperation is required to demonstrate that (1) it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) its efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) the attitude of the insured, after its cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction” … . “[M]ere efforts by the insurer and mere inaction on the part of the insured, without more, are insufficient to establish non-cooperation as the inference of non-cooperation must be practically compelling'” … .

Here, Global established that it made diligent efforts that were reasonably calculated to obtain the cooperation of BMC and Abduahadov … . However, Global failed to demonstrate that the conduct of BMC and Abduahadov constituted “willful and avowed obstruction” … . Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Fletcher, 2017 NY Slip Op 01199, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION)/NONCOOPERATION (INSURANCE LAW, DISCLAIMER, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION

,

BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 in serving the 90-day notice. The documents submitted by plaintiff’s employee (Gantner) did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service … or proof of mailing by the post office, evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Gantner’s affidavit and attached business records were not sufficient to establish that the notices were sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. While mailing may be proven by documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the rule against hearsay under CPLR 4518 … , here, Gantner did not aver that he was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Therefore, Gantner’s unsubstantiated and conclusory statements were insufficient to establish that the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed to the defendant by first-class and certified mail … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Pappas, 2017 NY Slip Op 01177. 2nd Dept 2-15-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED)

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.

The Second Department determined Family Court should have granted the motion for findings to allow a juvenile to petition for special immigrant juvenile state (SIJS):

Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record fully supports the petitioner’s contention that, because the child’s mother neglected him, reunification with the mother is not a viable option … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the record demonstrated that the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the child had been impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of the mother to exercise a minimum degree of care “in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter or education . . . though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” … . Indeed, the petitioner’s testimony at the hearing demonstrated that although the mother received financial assistance to provide for the child’s clothing and education, the mother failed to use such assistance for the child’s benefit. The child’s testimony corroborated the petitioner’s testimony in this respect.

Accordingly, the Family Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion for the issuance of an order making the requisite declaration and specific findings so as to enable the child to petition for SIJS. Matter of Wilson A.T.Z. (Jose M.T.G.–Manuela Z.M.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01215, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS)/IMMIGRATION LAW (SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS)/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) ( FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS)

,

CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the removal application should not have been granted and father’s appeal of the removal was not moot, even though the child had been returned to the father:

Although it is undisputed that the child has been returned to the father’s care, the father’s appeals are not academic. The child’s removal created a permanent and significant stigma … .

“In determining a removal application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, the court must engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal'” … . Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the child would be subjected to imminent risk if she were not placed in the custody of the petitioner pending the outcome of the neglect proceeding. Under the circumstances of this case, concerns about, inter alia, the adequacy of the father’s plan to care for the child did not amount to an imminent risk to the child’s life or health that could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal. Matter of Emmanuela B. (Jean E.B.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01195, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, REMOVAL, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/NEGLECT (CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/REMOVAL (CHILD NEGLECT, FAMILY LAW, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)

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