You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff, who alleged a defective stepladder was the cause of his fall, was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action (comparative negligence is not a factor). However, plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause action (alleging a violation of the industrial code) because plaintiff did not demonstrate his freedom from comparative negligence:

The plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant violated Labor Law § 240(1), as the owner of the building where the plaintiff was working, by providing a ladder with a defective supporting bracket, which caused the ladder to move and the plaintiff to fall to the ground … . The fact that the plaintiff may have been the sole witness to the accident does not preclude the award of summary judgment in his favor … . …

However, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 241(6). Although the evidence demonstrated that the ladder’s defective supporting bracket, which the plaintiff had complained about prior to the accident, constituted a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(3) … , the plaintiff failed to demonstrate his freedom from comparative negligence … . Cardenas v 111-127 Cabrini Apts. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08835, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)

,

VIOLATION OF SANDOVAL RULING REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO THE IMPROPER QUESTIONS.

The Second Department determined the prosecutor’s violation of the Sandoval ruling required reversal. Defendant was charged with attempted burglary. The court ruled the defendant could be cross-examined about petit larceny and burglary convictions, but only to the extent he could be question about unspecified misdemeanor and felony convictions. When defendant testified he was repeatedly asked whether he had ever walked into a building which was closed to the public. The Second Department held that defendant had not opened the door to that line of questioning:

On cross-examination, the defendant testified that there were times in the past when he had been intoxicated and “ended up in the bushes” or “in the park” and that it was possible for a drunk person to end up in someone’s backyard. The prosecutor questioned the defendant as to other places he had been in the past, specifically asking if he had ever “enter[ed] a building that [he] had no permission to go?” The defendant initially denied entering a building, but after further questioning, which the Supreme Court allowed over defense counsel’s objection, he admitted that he had walked into a store that was closed but had people in it. The prosecutor pressed further, and later asked the defendant, “Have you ever walked into a building that was completely closed to the public with no people inside of that building?” and the defendant responded, “I don’t recall.” The prosecutor then asked if he had been convicted of a felony and the defendant replied affirmatively. The record reflects more than a half a dozen occasions when the People clearly violated the court’s Sandoval ruling by repeatedly questioning the defendant concerning the underlying facts of his prior burglary conviction.

Defendants who take the witness stand, like other witnesses, place their credibility in issue and, thus, may be cross-examined about past criminal or immoral acts relevant to their credibility … . The policy underlying Sandoval is that the accused has the right to make an informed choice concerning whether he or she should take the witness stand … . Thus, in the interest of fairness, a trial court’s authority to change its Sandoval ruling is limited once the defendant has decided to testify in good-faith reliance on the court’s pretrial ruling … . The defendant in this case was denied that right when, after making what he believed to be an informed judgment and taking the witness stand, the Supreme Court implicitly changed the ruling upon which he relied by allowing the prosecutor to continue her course of prejudicial questioning despite repeated objections from defense counsel. The court’s implicit change in its ruling after the defendant had already taken the witness stand deprived the defendant of a fair trial … . People v Mohamed, 2016 NY Slip Op 08885, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF SANDOVAL RULING REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO THE IMPROPER QUESTIONS)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VIOLATION OF SANDOVAL RULING REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO THE IMPROPER QUESTIONS)/SANDOVAL RULING (VIOLATION OF SANDOVAL RULING REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO THE IMPROPER QUESTIONS)/CROSS-EXAMINATION (CRIMINAL LAW, VIOLATION OF SANDOVAL RULING REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO THE IMPROPER QUESTIONS)

,

EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY INTO HOME, EXPLOSIVES, DRUGS, GUNS, FORGED CURRENCY SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the emergency doctrine did not justify entrance into the home where hand grenades, guns, forged gun permits, explosives, marijuana and forged currency were seized. The police had responded to a silent alarm and found defendant working on a car outside the home. After questioning the defendant, the defendant unlocked to door of the home (to show the police he had keys to the home). When the defendant attempted to go inside and shut the door, the police pushed their way in and saw two hand grenades and a gun:

In the evaluation of whether a warrantless entry was justified under the “emergency doctrine,” the evidence must establish as a threshold matter that the police had “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a person within [the house] is in need of immediate aid” … . Under the Fourth Amendment, the officers’ subjective belief is irrelevant: “[a]n action is reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the] action'” … .

Here, the evidence at the suppression hearing fell short of the required threshold showing because it did not establish that the circumstances known to the police when they entered the house supported an objectively reasonable belief that entry was needed to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury … . The police were responding, in the early afternoon, to the type of notification that, in their experience, was usually a false alarm, not an emergency. Indeed, the People agree that the triggering of the alarm did not in itself permit the police to enter the house under the emergency doctrine. When the police arrived, they found the defendant, a middle-aged man, openly working on a van in the driveway. He had a key to the house. He explained his connection to the house, and he gave the police his phone so his sister could corroborate what he said. Moreover, there was no sign of a break-in. Neither of the police officers testified that he had any inkling that there were guns and other weaponry in the house. Their testimony was about their concern for the possible safety of anyone who might be in the house. Nothing, however, supported an objectively reasonable belief that “there was an emergency at hand requiring the immediate assistance of the police in order to protect life or property” … . Indeed, the facts known to the officers fell far short of the circumstances under which the emergency doctrine has been held applicable … . Simply put, this warrantless entry under the emergency doctrine was “unreasonable” (US Const Amend IV), because no facts then known supported a reasonable belief of an emergency. People v Ringel, 2016 NY Slip Op 08887, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY INTO HOME, EXPLOSIVES, DRUGS, GUNS, FORGED CURRENCY SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY INTO HOME, EXPLOSIVES, DRUGS, GUNS, FORGED CURRENCY SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY INTO HOME, EXPLOSIVES, DRUGS, GUNS, FORGED CURRENCY SUPPRESSED)/SEARCH AND SIEZURE (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY INTO HOME, EXPLOSIVES, DRUGS, GUNS, FORGED CURRENCY SUPPRESSED)/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (CRIMINAL LAW, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY INTO HOME, EXPLOSIVES, DRUGS, GUNS, FORGED CURRENCY SUPPRESSED)

,

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL, DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED.

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction solely on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. The court offered a detailed explanation of the misconduct:

“[I]n summing up to the jury, [the prosecutor] must stay within the four corners of the evidence’ and avoid irrelevant and inflammatory comments which have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the accused” … .

Here, during that summation, the prosecutor directly attacked defense counsel’s role and his integrity. Specifically, the prosecutor raised a hypothetical that bore no relation to the evidence in the case and then suggested what defense counsel would have argued with respect to that irrelevant hypothetical, in effect, implying that the defense arguments were the product of expediency. This tactic invited the jury to reject defense counsel’s argument not on the merits, but merely because it was raised by defense counsel. We strongly disapprove of this attack on the legitimacy of defense counsel’s role … . The prosecutor also improperly referenced facts not in evidence in order to call for speculation by the jury … and misstated critical testimony provided by a defense witness, alleging that certain facts were “undisputed” when in fact they were disputed … .

The prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy and generalized fear of crime by asserting that the defendant possessed a loaded gun while families and children from the “20 residential buildings” were “everywhere” having “cookouts” and celebrating the Fourth of July, and that because the various police officers “did their jobs,” “fortunately, nothing happened.” These comments implied to the jury that the defendant intended to commit crimes with which he was not charged … . Furthermore, immediately upon praising the police officers who “did their jobs,” the prosecutor turned to the jury and advised that “[n]ow it’s your turn to uphold your oaths as jurors and do your jobs” by finding the defendant guilty. This type of “safe streets” argument is inflammatory and has repeatedly been disapproved by the courts … .

The prosecutor also compared the defendant’s in-court demeanor and appearance to how he appeared on the night of his arrest in order to argue that the jury should not be fooled into considering him a “gentleman” … . The prosecutor went so far as to point to the defendant’s precinct photo and stated that his appearance there represented his “true colors.” People v Brisco, 2016 NY Slip Op 08878, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQURED REVERSAL, DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQURED REVERSAL, DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQURED REVERSAL, DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED)

,

DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO FLESH OUT RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTIES, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTY, NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR SUIT AGAINST LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY.

CIVIL PROCEDURE, MUNICIPAL LAW.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case was premature. The truck which struck plaintiff’s vehicle was registered to Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) but the driver was an employee of National Grid, which was under contract with LIPA. Plaintiff never served a notice of claim on LIPA, as required by the Public Authorities Law and the General Municipal Law. The Second Department held that plaintiff was entitled to discovery concerning the relationship between LIPA and National Grid, and further held that the relation-back doctrine allowed the amendment of the complaint to add National Grid as a defendant:

A party who contends that a motion for summary judgment is premature must “demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant” … . In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants had not revealed that, at the time of the subject accident, the defendant driver was actually employed by National Grid LLC, and not LIPA, until the defendants filed their summary judgment motion. The award of summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant driver was therefore premature, inasmuch as substantial discovery with respect to the relationship between the National Grid LLC and the defendant driver, as well as the nature of the business the defendant driver was conducting at the time of the subject accident, remains outstanding … . Marrone v Miloscio, 2016 NY Slip Op 08856, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO FLESH OUT RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTIES, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTY)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO FLESH OUT RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTIES)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR SUIT AGAINST LONG ISLAN POWER AUTHORITY)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (SUIT AGAINS LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY)

,

AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined dismissal of a motion to enter a default judgment as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCTT 202.48(b) was improper because the underlying order did not direct that it be settled or submitted for signature:

The Supreme Court incorrectly, sua sponte, dismissed the action as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(b) because … its determination of the plaintiff’s 2014 motion did not expressly direct that the proposed judgment or order be settled or submitted for signature (see 22 NYCRR 202.48[a]; Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Moley, 2016 NY Slip Op 08844, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE)/ABANDONMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS, AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE)/ORDERS (ABANDONMENT, (AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE)

, ,

FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED.

The Second Department determined the city’s motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law, made at the close of plaintiff’s proof, should have been granted. Plaintiff was stopped by the police for urinating in public. Based on an outstanding warrant for plaintiff’s arrest, plaintiff was arrested and detained. After dismissal of the charges, plaintiff sued alleging false arrest and civil rights violations (42 USC 1983). Because plaintiff’s arrest was pursuant to a warrant, the arrest was privileged and could not form the basis of the false arrest and 42 USC 1983 causes of action:

To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational basis by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant … . The plaintiff’s evidence must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff is entitled to every favorable inference that can be reasonably drawn therefrom … .

Where the confinement or detention of an individual against his or her will is privileged, a cause of action alleging false arrest will not lie … . One instance in which the privilege applies is when the confinement is based on a facially valid arrest warrant, issued by a court having jurisdiction … .

Here, the plaintiff did not contest the fact that the warrant was facially valid, and was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Ali v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08490, Second Dept 12-22-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED)/CIVIL RIGHTS (FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED)/FALSE ARREST (FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED)/42 USC 1983 (FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED)

PLAINTIFF NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BRING A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDTION.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was working for a mover, moving items out of a basement when he fell into a hole which had been dug for soil samples in anticipation of construction. Labor Law 200 was applicable, even though plaintiff was not engaged in construction work:

Where, as here, “a plaintiff’s injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed, but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, a general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 only if it had control over the work site and either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … . [The general contractor] failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have control over the work site, or that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . Rocha v GRT Constr. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 08555, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BRING A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDTION)/DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BRING A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDTION)

INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff was struck by a pipe which was being carried down a ladder by another worker:

According to the deposition testimony of Haylon Dennis … as Dennis was descending from a ladder, he swung a pipe that he was holding and hit the injured plaintiff, whom Dennis did not realize was standing near him. …

… [Defendants] established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injury was not the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object or person … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Palomeque v Capital Improvement Servs., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08538, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/GRAVITY-RELATED (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant general contractor’s motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was sitting on an unsecured cast iron gate, which was resting on the tailgate of a pickup truck, when he and the gate fell from the moving truck. The Second Department determined the fall was not the result of a task involving an elevation-related risk, but rather was the result of riding in a pickup truck (not an elevation-related risk). In addition, the court found that plaintiff’s negligence (choosing to ride in the truck while sitting on the unsecured gate with his legs hanging off the tailgate) constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident:

… [T]he plaintiff in this case was not engaged in the task of unloading the truck at the time of the accident. The grate, on which the plaintiff had been sitting, only fell onto the plaintiff because the plaintiff had fallen off the truck and onto the ground as a result of the movement of the truck. “Liability under Labor Law § 240(1) depends on whether the injured worker’s task creates an elevation-related risk of the kind that safety devices listed in section 240(1) protect against'” … . Here, the task that the plaintiff was engaged in at the time of the accident was the task of riding in a pickup truck. As the Court of Appeals and this Court have already held, the task of riding in a pickup truck does not present an elevation-related risk … . * * *

Under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s decision to sit in this position during the drive was so unforeseeable as to break the causal nexus between the alleged failure … to comply with Labor Law § 240(1) and the plaintiff’s injuries, and the plaintiff’s decision to sit in this position was, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Eddy v John Hummel Custom Bldrs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08502, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/TRUCKS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)

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