tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5619249687178492994.comments2022-06-05T16:54:50.451-04:00New York Appellate Law BlogRichard Monteshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17747042961513581018noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5619249687178492994.post-27558553939012947162011-11-22T10:10:09.205-05:002011-11-22T10:10:09.205-05:00Interestingly, the First Department clearly found,...Interestingly, the First Department clearly found, without discussion, that a 4 to 5-foot height differential is sufficient to invoke the protections of Labor Law 240(1). The Court of Appeals recently heard Argument in Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC, which involved, in part, a question as to whether a 6-foot fall from a dumpster was sufficient to invoke 240(1) liability. Follow this blog for an update on the Ortiz matter.ADeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08829710245088421169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5619249687178492994.post-55497480573087348122010-07-21T11:26:11.139-04:002010-07-21T11:26:11.139-04:00Interestingly, at least one of the defendants may ...Interestingly, at least one of the defendants may have been the owner of the project. Although not discussed in the Court's decision, an owner of a construction site may be held liable for the negligent acts of its independent contractors if (1) the contractor has created a special danger upon a sidewalk in the course of its work; (2) the danger is anticipated by the owner; and (3) the owner has notice of the condition (Gamer v. Ross, 49 A.D.3d 598, 600 [2nd Dept. 2008]). Here, the Court found a question of fact as to the Owner's notice of the alleged condition.ADeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08829710245088421169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5619249687178492994.post-19261991004253825322009-12-30T10:05:00.004-05:002009-12-30T10:05:00.004-05:00Did the court require an A+ company at a hearing j...Did the court require an A+ company at a hearing just prior to purchase of the annuity contract OR did the court approve such language in the judgment? The big difference is that the former presumes evidence that such a company with an A+ rating exists; if it's in the judgment and an Appeal is taken or some time passes, it is possible that there is no company with such a rating and therefore the defendants can not satisfy the judgment with an annuity and are forced to pay the judgment in lump sum without the 50-B benefits. This should not be allowed.ADeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08829710245088421169noreply@blogger.com