Second Department Dismisses Labor Law 240(1) Claim for Injury Caused by Carrying Heavy Steel Beam, But Awards Contractual Defense Costs

In Sullivan v New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., plaintiff's knee gave out while carrying a heavy beam on his shoulder down a flight of stairs with a co-worker. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). All motions and cross-motions for summary judgment were denied. On appeal, the Second Department dismissed plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that plaintiff’s injury was related to the weight of the beam being carried as opposed to an elevation-related risk. The Court further found that plaintiff could not recover under Labor Law § 240(1) for a fall on a permanent staircase.

In addition, the Court determined that although the third-party plaintiff was entitled to contractual defense costs, it would not be entitled to indemnification since the only remaining claim after the dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law claims would be a claim for negligence. The Court observed that a party to a construction contract cannot be indemnified for its own negligence. Therefore, the Court held, "the third-party cause of action and cross claim for contractual indemnification asserted against [third-party defendant should be dismissed], except insofar as those causes of action sought defense costs."

Second Department Denied Summary Judgment Pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) Where Issues of Fact Remained as to Sole Proximate Cause

In Lorde v Margaret Tietz Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., the plaintiff was injured when the inverted bucket that he was standing on tilted, causing him to fall. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging common law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The lower court denied plaintiff’s motion and the Second Department affirmed finding that “[l]iability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and plaintiff knew he was expected to use them but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident”. The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s testimony, namely that he could not recall how many ladders were in the room at the time of his accident and that he did not know whether there were more than six ladders available at the job site, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether there were ladders available and whether plaintiff’s decision to stand on the bucket was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Second Department Denies Summary Judgment to Plaintiff On His Labor Law § 241(6) Claim Where Issues of Fact Remain as to Plaintiff's Comparative Fault

In Cardenas v. 111-127 Cabrini Apartments Corp., the plaintiff was injured while painting when he fell from a ladder that had a defective supporting bracket that could become unlocked without warning. He commenced an action against the defendant alleging, in part, violations of Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6). On the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, the lower court granted the plaintiff summary judgment pursuant to both Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6). On appeal, the Second Department modified only insofar as the Court denied the plaintiff summary judgment on his section 241(6) claim - the Court affirmed summary judgment on the section 240(1) claim. The Court found that, although the Industrial Code provision relied on by the plaintiff had been violated, issues of fact nevertheless remained as to the plaintiff's comparative negligence. (see our recent blog post regarding comparative negligence and its affect on summary judgment here) 

First Department Finds Sole Proximate Cause In Labor Law Action Where Plaintiff Chose the Method of Securing Equipment That Fell and Contributed to His Injury

In Guido v. DASNY, plaintiff parked his truck on top of debris outside of a construction site where his employer was performing work, causing his truck to "tilt." As he was loading his employer's ladders into the truck, they slid causing him to fall to the ground. In dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, the First Department found that the "tilt" was de minimis, and thus not an elevation-related hazard. The Court further found that the Industrial Code provision relied on by plaintiff, 12 NYCRR §23-1.7(e), regarding clearing debris did not apply because the area where he was injured was not a passageway or working area. And, plaintiff was nonetheless the sole proximate cause of his accident. Plaintiff chose the method for securing the ladders to the truck. After securing one ladder with a bungee cord, plaintiff chose to remove the bungee cord in order to secure a second ladder. The Court found that plaintiff could have instead used one of the several bungee cords that were available in order to separately secure the second ladder.   

First Department Allows Evidence of Post-Accident Repairs to be used to Establish Identity of Alleged Injury Producing Equipment

In Perkins v. NYCTA, the First Department affirmed the lower court's direction to the defendant to produce evidence of post-accident repairs in order to establish that a wheelchair ramp to be inspected was the same ramp on which plaintiff was allegedly injured. As an alternative, the defendant could provide an affidavit attesting to the fact that the wheelchair ramp to be inspected was the same ramp on the bus at the time of the accident.

First Department Seemingly Finds That Whether Ambiguity Exists in an Insurance Contract Depends on the Facts of the Case Rather Than the Terms of the Insuring Agreement

We had previously reported that in Dean v. Tower Ins. Co., the Court of Appeals had affirmed the First Department on a finding that the term "reside" in an insurance policy issued by Tower Insurance was ambiguous. This issue has appeared again in Tower Ins. Co. v. Zaroom, where the First Department has now found that the term "reside" is unambiguous. The Court specifically indicated that "under the circumstances of this action, as opposed to the circumstances in Dean v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. (19 NY3d 704 [2012]), 'reside' is not ambiguous."

In Dean, the property owner was renovating the insured-property when a fire occurred. Although he did not reside in the house undergoing renovations at the time of the fire, he had spent a considerable amount of time at the house during the renovation, ate at the house and slept there on several occasions. By contrast, in Tower v. Zaroom, the Zarooms admitted that they did not reside at the insured-property. Clearly, therefore, where there was a question of fact in Dean as to whether the owner could be deemed to have "resided" at the insured-property at the time of the fire, there was no question of fact that the Zarooms did not reside at the insured-property.

The difficulty here is that, if the term "reside" was ambiguous in Dean, then it must likewise still be ambiguous in Tower v. Zaroom. The definition of the term has not changed, just the facts applied to the definition. Therefore, the effect of Dean and Tower v. Zaroom is that, unlike most other situations where ambiguity in an insurance contract is determined as a matter of law, whether the term "reside" will be found to be ambiguous is dependent on the factual circumstances of each individual case. 

Recent Second Department Decisions Highlight A Common Theme When Deciding Liability For "Defective Means and Methods" or "Defective Conditions" Under Labor Law § 200

In determining liability under Labor Law § 200, there are two principles that underscore most Labor Law § 200 cases (1) where liability can be imposed based on "defective means and methods" of the work and (2) where liability can be imposed based on a "defective condition" on the property. Both of these principles require either control over the work or control over the condition. Two recent decisions from the Second Department illustrate these principles.

In Zupan v. Irwin Contracting, Inc., the plaintiff was carrying a 30-foot long, 200-pound steel rafter on his shoulders and was injured when he attempted to place the rafter on the ground. He commenced an action against the general contractor and construction manager asserting claims, in part, under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Thereafter, the general contractor and construction manager separately moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted the motions and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Second Department reversed summary judgment in favor of the general contractor finding that the general contractor had failed to eliminate material issues of fact, but the Court affirmed as to the construction manager. The Court found that this was a case involving defective means and methods and the general contractor had supervised the plaintiff and given him his daily work assignments.  In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the general contractor had given plaintiff specific instructions as to how to move the rafter and when plaintiff complained he was told "just do it."  Therefore, the plaintiff's testimony raised a question of fact as to whether the general contractor could be held liable under section 200 of the Labor Law.

In Kane v. Peter M. Moore Construction, Co., the plaintiff was working on a home renovation when he slipped and fell on a dropcloth placed on a staircase allegedly by the employees of another contractor. The Supreme Court denied both the homeowner's and contractor's motions to dismiss the plaintiff's section 200 claim. On appeal, the Second Department reversed as to the homeowner upon a finding that constructive notice could not be established, but affirmed as to the contractor upon finding that the contractor had failed to establish that it did not create the condition on which the plaintiff had fallen. 

Second Department Finds That Worker's Fall From Open Tailgate of Moving Pickup Truck, and His Subsequently Being Struck by A Falling Object, Does Not Trigger Liability Under Labor Law § 240(1)

In Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Bldrs., Inc., the plaintiff had loaded heavy construction material into the back of a pickup truck in order to transport the materials at a construction site. One such item was a cast iron grate weighing approximately 100 pounds. The plaintiff and a co-worker placed the grate on the open tailgate of the truck. The materials were not secured with ropes, bungee cords, ratchets, or other similar devices and the bed of the truck was not equipped with a seat or platform for someone to sit on.

The plaintiff’s co-worker, DiSunno advised the plaintiff to sit in the front passenger seat because DiSunno did not think it was safe for the plaintiff to ride in the back of the truck. The plaintiff decided instead to sit on top of the grate that was lying on the open tailgate. In this position, the plaintiff's feet hung over the edge of the tailgate. As DiSunno began to drive the truck, the plaintiff fell and the grate toppled off the tailgate, striking the plaintiff causing his injuries.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the general contractor and owners of the site, alleging, in part, violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The general contractor moved for summary judgment and the plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1). The Supreme Court denied the general contractor's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross motion. The court reasoned that although the statute did not typically apply to injuries caused by materials that fall from a minuscule height during the loading or unloading process, the statute applied in this case because the falling grate required securing for the purposes of the work and posed a foreseeable risk of falling from the truck due to an elevation differential.

In reversing the lower court and granting the general contractor’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s section 240(1) claim, the Court observed that the Court of Appeals and the Second Department have repeatedly held that “because the distance between the back of a pickup or flatbed truck and the ground is so small, the risk of a worker falling off the back of a pickup or flatbed truck is, as a matter of law, is not an extraordinary elevation-related risk protected by Labor Law § 240(1), but rather, one of the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site.” In two such cases, including Dilluvio v City of New York (95 NY2d 928 [2000]) the plaintiff had injured himself as a result of falling from a truck that was moving, and the courts held that “the danger to the plaintiff was referable to the movement of the truck and not height.” 

The Second Department further observed that it had previously held that because the distance between the back of a flatbed truck and the ground is so small, workers injured by objects being unloaded from a flatbed truck while standing on the ground next to the truck are likewise not entitled to recover pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1).

In the present case, therefore, the Second Department rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the elevation differential between the bed of the pickup and the ground could not be de minimis given the weight of the grate (citing Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d at 602, 605 [involving a reel of wire that weighed "some 800 pounds"]) because even if the plaintiff had been injured while unloading the 100-pound grate his argument would be undercut by the Court of Appeals decision in Rodriguez v Margaret Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care (84 NY2d 841), where the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was exposed to the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, rather than a special elevation risk contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1), in placing a 120-pound beam onto the ground from seven inches above his head with the assistance of three other coworkers.

The Second Department further rejected plaintiff’s argument on the basis that plaintiff was not engaged in the task of unloading the truck at the time of the accident. The Court observed that the grate had only fallen onto the plaintiff because the plaintiff had fallen off the truck as a result of the movement of the truck. Therefore, the task that the plaintiff was engaged in at the time of the accident was the task of riding in a pickup truck, which, as indicated, does not present an elevation-related risk.

The Second Department also found that, even if Labor Law § 240(1) applied, plaintiff would not be entitled to recovery because, under the circumstances of this case, any failure on the part of the general contractor to provide the plaintiff with protection from riding in the back of the pickup truck was not a proximate cause of the accident. The Court found that the plaintiff’s refusal to heed the advice of DiSunno and sit in the front passenger seat, coupled with the plaintiff’s decision to sit on top of the grate that was lying on the truck's open tailgate, with his feet dangling over the edge of the tailgate, were “so unforeseeable as to break the causal nexus between the alleged failure of [the general contractor] 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."  As such, the Court also dismissed plaintiff's section 241(6) claim.

Court of Appeals Reverses First Department On Issue of Whether Plaintiff Was Sole Proximate Cause of His Fall From Scaffold and Grants Plaintiff Summary Judgment

We had previously reported that the First Department had found questions of fact regarding sole proximate cause in a Labor Law § 240(1) action in Batista v. Manhattanville College. Subsequently, the First Department granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.  On appeal, the High Court reversed and granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. See our original entry below for the facts of the case.

In Batista v. Manhattanville College, the plaintiff was injured in a fall from a scaffold that he was constructing. Plaintiff had been instructed to use only pine planks for the flooring and to check the planks for knots. He fell two stories from the scaffold when an alleged spruce plank that he was standing on broke.

On motions for summary judgment the trial court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the scaffold failed to provide plaintiff with proper protection. On appeal, the First Department reversed and denied the motion. The Court found that whether plaintiff disregarded instructions to use only pine planks and whether more pine planks were readily available to him were questions of fact. The Court also found that whether plaintiff was responsible for checking the planks for knots was also a question of fact.    

Court of Appeals Modifies First Department Decision re: Labor Law § 240(1) and Electric Shock

**** Update: The Court of Appeals has modified to deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and remitted the matter to the First Department for consideration of additional issues. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_07823.htm Original Blog Entry below. ****

In a concurring opinion in Nazario v. 222 Broadway, LLC, the First Department adheres to its precedent that a worker who falls from a ladder after sustaining an electric shock is prima facie entitled to judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1).  Here, the worker fell along with the ladder after receiving the shock. The majority found that because the ladder was unsecured, allowing both the worker and the ladder to fall, the plaintiff had established his entitlement to judgment on liability under the statute.  The majority rejected the defendants' contention that the ladder was defect-free, and therefore the plaintiff was obligated to prove that the defendants had failed to provide him with an appropriate safety device.

Justice Tom concurred, but felt constrained to do so by the Court's prior precedent.  Notably, however, Justice Tom disagreed with the majority that it is enough for a plaintiff to show that he was injured falling from a defect-free ladder after receiving an electric shock.  Instead, Justice Tom noted that it is the plaintiff's burden to prove both the absence of an adequate safety device and proximate cause. Here, falling from a defect-fee ladder would ordinarily raise a question of fact as to the sufficiency of the safety device, even when the falling worker received an electric shock.  He noted that the Court's prior holdings had "created a special class of decisions which, contrary to the foundational Court of Appeals holdings in this area, remove a plaintiff's quintessential burden to establish causation under the Labor Law."

Finally, Justice Tom stated that the decisions of the First Department in this regard were contrary not only to the Court of Appeals, but also to the other three Departments of the Appellate Division, which have all found that questions of fact existed as to the adequacy of the safety device where the injured worker fell after receiving an electric shock (see Grogan v Norlite Corp., 282 A.D.2d 781 [3d Dept 2001]; Donovan v CNY Consol. Contrs., 278 A.D.2d 881 [4th Dept 2000]; Gange v Tilles Inv. Co., 220 A.D.2d 556, 558 [2d Dept 1995]).    

First Department Judges Continue Internal Disagreement Over Whether Plaintiff Must Prove Freedom From Comparative Fault to Establish Entitlement to Summary Judgment

Rodriguez v. City of New York, demonstrates once again that the First Department lacks unanimity as to whether a plaintiff can obtain summary judgment where questions of fact remain as to the plaintiff's comparative fault. As the majority writes: "we are revisiting a vexing issue regarding comparative fault: whether a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, as a matter of law, that he or she is free from comparative fault. This issue has spawned conflicting decisions between the judicial departments, as well as inconsistent decisions by different panels within this Department." Most of the Justices in the First Department are in accord with the Second Department's stance on this issue, i.e. that a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of freedom from comparative fault in order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of liability.  The Fourth Department would allow partial summary judgment on the issue of a defendant's negligence even if an open question exists regarding the plaintiff's comparative fault (see Simoneit v Mark Cerrone, Inc., 122 AD3d 1246 [4th Dept 2014]).    

The majority explains that the difference between awarding partial summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's motion in its entirety is that, if the motion were granted then the issue of contributory negligence would have to be considered during the damages portion of the case, whereas if the motion were denied then the issue must be considered during the liability phase of the trial.

The First Department's stance on this issue is traced back to Thoma v Ronai (189 AD2d 635 [1st Dept 1993], affd 82 NY2d 736 [1993]), in which the plaintiff's motion was denied because she had failed to demonstrate that she was free from comparative negligence as a matter of law.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the First Department's decision, finding that the "'plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of demonstrating the absence of any material issue of fact' on the question of her freedom from comparative negligence and therefore did not meet her burden on proof on the motion (82 NY2d at 737)."

As stated by the majority in Rodriguez: "The clear direction of Thoma is that a plaintiff may not be awarded partial summary judgment on the issue of a defendant's negligence if the defendant has raised an issue of fact as to the plaintiff's comparative negligence."

The rationale in support of the denial of summary judgment on this issue was best explained in Maniscalco v New York City Tra. Auth. (95 AD3d 510 [1st Dept 2012]), where the Court stated that "the causal role of each party's conduct should not be determined in isolation" (id. at 513).  Quoting from Professor Alexander the majority observed:

"Conceptually, any amount of negligence by a defendant could trigger his or her liability, and CPLR 3212(e)allows for the entry of partial summary judgment as to any part of a cause of action. But few, if any, litigation efficiencies are achieved by the entry of partial summary judgment in this context because the defendant would still be entitled, at trial to present an all-out case on the plaintiff's culpable conduct. Furthermore, it is possible that a jury might find plaintiff's culpability to be the sole proximate cause of the accident if the issues of the defendant's liability and the plaintiff's comparative fault are seen, in the words of the dissent in Johnson v New York City Tra. Auth., 88 AD3d 321, 332 [1st Dept 2011] 'as an integrated whole.'" (Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B C1412) (emphasis added).

To hold otherwise, the majority colloquially stated, "defendant [would be] essentially entering the batter's box with two strikes already called."

The majority also observed that the Pattern Jury Instructions, PJI 2:36 et seq., provides that, in a comparative negligence case, the jury must be given instructions as to the defendant's liability and the plaintiff's liability at the same time (see 1A NY PJI3d 2:36 at 273 et seq.[2016]), which permits the jury to consider the actions of both parties as a whole in making their determination.

Addressing the dissenting opinion, the majority stated that the dissent had taken "the curious position" that summary judgment should nevertheless be granted as a matter of law where "plaintiff met his prima facie burden of establishing defendant's negligence as a proximate cause of the injury, and defendant failed to raise triable issues of fact with respect to its own negligence, but successfully raised triable issues of fact as to comparative negligence on the part of plaintiff." The majority noted, however, that such a determination would be contrary to the PJI, Professor Alexander's commentaries, and the First Department's holding in Maniscalco (95 AD3d 510) that "the causal role of each party's conduct should not be determined in isolation" (id. at 513). The majority further observed, as noted by Professor Alexander, the dissents position ignores the fact that "'a jury might find plaintiff's culpability to be the sole proximate cause of the accident' where the issues are tried as a whole. By finding, as a matter of law, that a defendant is at fault, the court denies the jury the opportunity to determine the issue of proximate cause."

The dissenters quoted from the concurring opinion in Capuano v Tishman Constr. Corp. (98 AD3d 848 [1st Dept 2012] [Acosta, J., concurring]), "I would hold that a plaintiff does not have th[e] burden [of disproving the affirmative defense of comparative negligence]. Once a prima facie showing [of defendant's negligence] is made, the burden shifts to the defendant to raise issues of fact, such as by submitting evidence in support of an affirmative defense" (id. at 852). Thus, "where a defendant fails to raise issues of fact as to his or her own negligence, but succeeds in raising issues of fact as to the plaintiff's comparative negligence, partial summary judgment on liability with respect to defendant's negligence is warranted, because the defendant will be liable to the extent his or her misconduct proximately caused the injury" which would allow for an argument during a subsequent trial on liability and damages that plaintiff was comparatively at fault. Therefore, the dissent would have granted plaintiff's motion finding defendant negligent as a matter of law and remanded the matter for a determination of liability attributable to each party.

The dissent disagreed with the majority's holding that by observing that comparative fault is an affirmative defense and a plaintiff should not be obligated to disprove that defense in order to obtain partial summary judgment on liability.  According to the dissent, plaintiff's only burden is to show that defendants was negligent.  The dissent further indicated that Thoma v Ronai did not require a different analysis because "the Court of Appeals said nothing about whether a plaintiff's prima facie burden includes disproving the affirmative defense of comparative fault." As such, the dissent indicated that the majority's reliance on Thoma was "unfounded."

The dissent further indicated that plaintiff could be granted summary judgment to the extent of finding defendant negligent as a matter of law, and allowing the jury to apportion fault. To that end, the dissent recommended that the matter be remanded "first for a trial on liability, during which the jury would consider the conduct of both parties and apportion fault accordingly. A trial on damages would follow, during which the jury would determine the total amount of damages (to be reduced in proportion to the apportionment of fault)." The jury would be instructed that "it cannot completely absolve the defendant of liability or find plaintiff 100% liable."  The dissent qualified its recommendation in this regard by observing that it would only be available in a case where it has already been established, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff could not have been the sole proximate cause of his accident.

First Department Finds Distinct and Independent Questions of Fact Regarding Adequacy of Safety Device and Recalcitrance/Sole Proximate Cause of Worker In Labor Law § 240(1) Case

In Albino v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp., the plaintiff was injured in a fall from a roof while attempting to step into a scaffold that was located on the side of the building. Plaintiff had planned to use the scaffold to descend from the roof. As relevant here, the accident was unwitnessed and plaintiff gave differing accounts as to why he fell. Immediately after the accident he told his foreman that he fell because his foot slipped as he stepped onto the scaffold. Plaintiff testified at his deposition, however, that a wire attached to the scaffold snapped, causing the scaffold to swing away from the building, which resulted in plaintiff's fall.

In addition, although plaintiff testified that he could not use the harness he had in his possession because there were no safety lines, the foreman testified that he had worked with plaintiff earlier in the day and they had both had worn attached harnesses. The foreman also contradicted plaintiff's testimony that plaintiff would have been fired if he waited until safety lines were installed. the foreman indicated that he instructed all of his employees, including plaintiff, to wear safety equipment and that when he left plaintiff in charge he never instructed plaintiff to work without wearing an attached safety harness.

The First Department affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), finding that questions of fact existed both as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident and whether the scaffold was an adequate safety device. 

Notably, the Court specifically found that these two questions were distinct and independent. More specifically, "a factfinder could rationally determine, based on the foreman's testimony concerning plaintiff's original account of the accident, that plaintiff fell simply because he misplaced his foot when stepping onto the scaffold, without the scaffold moving or otherwise malfunctioning or failing. It would follow from such a finding — even assuming that the harness issue is determined in plaintiff's favor — that his injuries were not proximately caused by any violation of section 240(1)." Simply stated, if the jury were to find that the scaffold was adequate, then the lack of a safety line would not have been a violation of the statute. 

This Summer's Notable Decisions Regarding Pre-judgment Interest, Appellate Procedure and Other Issues

The Appellate Courts release fewer decisions and with less frequency during the summer months. Below are a few of this Summer's notable decisions. 

Second Department Concludes That Pre-Judgment Interest Is Not Triggered By a Stipulation of Liability

In Mahoney v. Brockbank, the defendant stipulated to liability in exchange for plaintiff’s stipulation to discontinue a cause of action against defendant for punitive damages. Approximately 2 ½ years later, a trial on damages was held, resulting in an award in favor of plaintiff on damages.  Both sides submitted proposed judgments. The plaintiff’s proposed judgment included pre-judgment interest calculated from the date of the stipulation. The defendant’s proposed judgment included interest from the date of the jury verdict on damages. The trial court signed the defendant’s judgment and the plaintiff appealed.

The Second Department observed that CPLR 5002 governs pre-judgment interest “from the date the verdict was rendered or the report or decision was made.” The Court further observed that there are extensive cases regarding what constitutes a verdict, report or decision including decisions on motions for summary judgment, to enter default judgment and to strike defendant’s answer; decisions on unopposed applications for a directed verdict on liability; binding arbitrators’ awards; confirmation of a referee’s report; and the decision of an Appellate Court reversing the denial of a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability. The Second Department noted that each of these was an adjudication by a jury, court or arbitrator.

By contrast, in the present case, the stipulation was not an adjudication of liability – it was an agreement between the parties. Had the Legislature intended to include stipulations in CPLR 5002 it could have done so. Therefore, finding that it was significant that the Legislature had omitted stipulations from CPLR 5002, the Second Department concluded that the stipulation did not trigger an obligation to pay pre-judgment interest, and instead pre-judgment interest was properly calculated from the date of the jury verdict on damages.

Second Department Holds that Denial of Untimely Appeal Is Not an Adjudication on the Merits

In Mosby v Parilla, the Second Department points to a noteworthy distinction between an appeal that is dismissed because of a failure to timely perfect and an appeal that is dismissed because it was not timely taken. Here, the jury found for plaintiff in a medical malpractice suit. The defendant then moved, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), to have the verdict set aside. While the 4404(a) motion was still pending, plaintiff caused judgment to be entered and defendant appealed. The Second Department subsequently dismissed defendant’s appeal as untimely, but the lower court granted defendant’s earlier CPLR 4404(a) motion and the verdict was set aside as a matter of law.

Plaintiff appealed, stating that the Second Department’s dismissal of defendant’s untimely appeal precluded the Supreme Court from subsequently granting defendant’s 4404(a) motion. In holding for defendant, the Second Department noted that the “dismissal of an appeal as untimely does not constitute an adjudication on the merits” (unlike the dismissal of an appeal for a failure to perfect) and therefore the CPLR 4404(a) motion survived the collateral estoppel arguments raised by plaintiff.

Second Department Holds that Contractor Did Not Exacerbate Dangerous Condition

In Barone v Nickerson, plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell while ascending stairs, which defendant was hired by the property owners to repair. Defendant was a third party whose contractual obligations were to the property owners, not the plaintiff. Plaintiff brought an action against defendant and the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, plaintiff claimed that defendant fell within one of the three Espinal exceptions, which may give rise to tort liability under contractual obligations of third parties: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties, [or] (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely" (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 (2002)). Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant had violated the first factor by exacerbating the dangerous condition. Defendant was then required to make a prima facie showing negating only the applicability of the exception “expressly pleaded” by the plaintiff. In holding for defendant, the Second Department held that defendant had met his burden by showing that he did not leave the steps or handrail in a condition more dangerous than he had found it.

First Department Grants Partial Summary Judgment of Non-culpability for Innocent Driver

Oluwatayo v Dulinayan involved a motor vehicle accident, where plaintiff was rear-ended by defendant driver who was also rear-ended by another co-defendant driver. Plaintiff sought summary judgment on liability against both drivers. The lower court denied the motion, as plaintiff failed to meet his burden of eliminating triable issues of fact.

On appeal, the First Department, although agreeing with the lower court that there were triable issues of fact relating to the proportional fault of each defendant driver, held that the plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment under CPLR §3212(g) (“Limitation of issues of fact for trial”). In reviewing a series of cases involving innocent plaintiff passengers, the court stated the fact that the plaintiff driver here was rear-ended, while stopped was analogous to other cases where passenger plaintiffs were “entitled to a determination that [plaintiff] had no culpable conduct on the issue of liability irrespective of the unresolved issue of a defendant driver's negligence.” Unlike the innocent passenger cases, however, plaintiff here failed to establish the proportionality of fault of each defendant driver. Plaintiff was granted partial summary judgment “to the extent of finding no culpable conduct by plaintiff on the issue of liability.”

This Summer's Notable Labor Law Decisions

During the summer months the Appellate Courts release fewer decisions and release those decisions less frequently.  Below are two notable Labor Law decisions issued this summer. A third case regarding who is an "owner" under the Labor Law will follow in a separate blog entry. 

First Department Looks at Labor Law §240 Claim Where Plaintiff was Injured on Hilltop

In Ankers v Horizon Group, plaintiff was injured on a condominium construction site when a motorized wheelbarrow, which he was standing on, inadvertently rolled down a hill and caused plaintiff to tumble about fifteen feet. Among other claims, plaintiff brought a Labor Law §240(1) claim against defendant. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the §240 claim and defendant appealed.

Under a Labor Law §240 claim contractors, owners, and their agents are responsible to furnish or erect devices to give proper protection from “gravity related” risks. The issue here was whether the wheelbarrow rolling down the hill was such a risk or an ordinary danger of the work site. The First Department held that because this determination was a genuine issue of fact, summary judgement on the §240(1) claim was improper and reversed the lower court’s decision.

Second Department Finds That Safety Consultant Is Not a Proper Labor Law Defendant

In Marquez v. L&M Dev. Partners, Inc., plaintiff was injured at a construction site when he fell through a plywood covered hole. Pro Safety Services (PSS) had been retained by the owner to provide “loss control and safety consulting services.” PSS solely acted in a consulting capacity and did not have any actual authority to control plaintiff’s work or the condition on which plaintiff was allegedly injured. As such, the Second Department granted summary judgment to PSS dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, finding that PSS was not a “statutory agent” of the owner and therefore not a proper labor law defendant for purposes of Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6), and PSS’s lack of control over the work and the site conditions also entitled PSS to dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law §200 and common law negligence claims.

Court of Appeals States That the Appellate Division Does Not Need to Expressly Compare Damages Awards When Reviewing For Excessiveness or Inadequacy Under CPLR 5501(c)

For some time it has been argued that CPLR 5501(c), which mandates that the Appellate Division review awards for damages to determine if they deviate materially from reasonable compensation, requires the Appellate Division to provide a meaningful comparison of cases that involve awards for similar injuries in order to determine if the awards at present are excessive or inadequate.

In Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, the Court of Appeals stated that there is no such requirement. More specifically, the Court stated that "we reject TLC's contention that the Appellate Division applied the wrong legal standard in assessing whether Supreme Court's reduced damages award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. Neither CPLR 5501 (c) nor CPLR 5522 requires the Appellate Division to expressly compare the damages award in the judgment appealed from with damages awards in other cases in its written decision." Therefore, according to the Court of Appeals, it would be enough for the Appellate Division to simply state that it has considered the arguments regarding excessiveness or inadequacy and finds that the awards for damages do not deviate materially from reasonable compensation without providing either a rationale or comparable cases to support its decision.

Second Department Holds that “Graves Amendment” Defense Not Sufficient to Succeed on a CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) Motion to Dismiss

In Argelo v Hanif, plaintiff passengers were injured when defendant hit their car while driving a rented U-Haul truck. The plaintiffs then brought a negligence claim against the drivers of both vehicles and U-Haul as owner of the truck. U-Haul moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to have the claims dismissed relying on 49 USC § 30106(a) (“Graves Amendment”), which relieves a motor vehicle owner from liability if the owner is (1) engaged in the trade or business of renting motor vehicles, and (2) engaged in no negligence or criminal wrongdoing. U-Haul relied on the affidavit of its investigator who opined that he believed that the accident had been staged. U-Haul’s motion to dismiss was denied and they appealed to the Second Department.

On appeal, although U-Haul could show pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), regarding documentary evidence, that they were engaged in the business of renting motor vehicles, the court held that the affidavit of U-Haul's investigator could not be considered in support of this portion of U-Haul's motion because it was not "documentary evidence" within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to CPLR 3211(a)(7), U-Haul failed to establish that no “significant dispute exists” as to whether U-Haul was negligent. The only evidence which U-Haul presented was the affidavit of its investigator related to insurance fraud and that the accident was staged.  This evidence, however, did not support the fact that U-Haul was not negligent in the maintenance of the vehicle. Therefore, accepting as true the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint, which the the Second Department was compelled to do, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny U-Haul’s motion to dismiss. 

Second Department Affirms Jury Verdict Despite Admittance of Improper Hearsay Evidence

In Parris v New Work City Transit Auth., plaintiff was injured when he came into contact with a bus owned by defendant. The plaintiff claimed that he had no memory of the accident.  During trial, hearsay evidence (a NYCTA accident report) was admitted stating that the driver of the bus saw plaintiff drinking from a bottle before the accident occurred. The jury rendered a verdict for defendants, finding that although defendants were negligent, such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. The plaintiff moved to set aside the jury's verdict and his motion was denied. As such, the plaintiff appealed to the Second Department.

First, the plaintiff contented that the lower court erred in not holding a unified trial on issues of liability and damages based on the fact that plaintiff could not recall how the accident happened. The Second Department affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion in limine stating that “[c]ourts are encouraged to bifurcate issues of liability and damages in personal injury trials.”  A unified trial is only appropriate when “the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability.”  The court held that plaintiff failed to show such a relationship existed.

Next, the Second Department agreed with plaintiff that it was error to admit hearsay evidence, which did not qualify under any exception to the hearsay rule. The error, however, did not “constitute prejudice or reversible error” and the Court found that the trial result would have been the same even if the statement had been excluded. Plaintiff’s other contentions, including an argument that the jury should have held him to a lesser standard of proof because of his alleged amnesia, were unfounded. The Court found that plaintiff could recall the events leading up to the accident, but not the accident itself and that he failed to submit medical proof that his amnesia was caused by the defendants. Therefore, the Court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants.

First Department Excludes Routine Household Cleaning from Labor Law §240 Claims

In Morales v Avalon Bay Communities Inc., the plaintiff was injured when she fell from a three foot step ladder while cleaning the interior of a kitchen in an apartment complex.  At the time of her fall, construction of the complex was nearing completion and approximately 90% of the units within the building were occupied. The plaintiff nevertheless brought suit against the owners of the building alleging violations of "the Scaffold Law," Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6). The lower court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the First Department considered whether plaintiff was engaged in “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law §240(1). The court considered the factors set out in Soto v J. Crew Inc., (21 NY3d 562, 568 [2013]) (holding that “activity cannot be characterized as ‘cleaning’ under the statute, if the task: (1) is routine, in the sense that it is the type of job that occurs on a daily, weekly or other relatively-frequent and recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of commercial premises; (2) requires neither specialized equipment or expertise, nor the unusual deployment of labor; (3) generally involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those inherent in typical domestic or household cleaning; and (4) in light of the core purpose of Labor Law § 240 (1) to protect construction workers, is unrelated to any ongoing construction, renovation, painting, alteration or repair project”).  After review, the court concluded that plaintiff was not engaged in §240 “cleaning” and the §240(1) claim was properly dismissed.

In dismissing the §241(6) claim the First Department likewise agreed with the trial court that “plaintiff was not engaged in duties connected to the inherently hazardous work of construction, excavation, or demolition.”

First Department Determines That Elevators Are Falling Objects Under Labor Law § 240

In McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co., the First Department held that an injured elevator repairman was entitled to recovery under Labor Law § 240 as an elevator is considered a “falling object” within the meaning of the Labor Law. Although an elevator is not technically “hoisted or secured at the time of the accident,” it requires securing when suspended during repair work and therefore falls under the statute’s purview.  Therefore, the defendant was held strictly liable for injuries sustained from the falling elevator.

The Court further found that plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Although an adequate safety device was made available, a kill switch, plaintiff was never informed of the safeguard. Therefore, since plaintiff was unaware of the availability of the safety device, he could not be found to be the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Second Department Holds Defendant Liable Under Labor Law §240(1) Where Plaintiff Was Electrocuted and Fell From Scaffold

In Viera v WFJ Realty Corp., the plaintiff was injured from an electric shock and subsequent fall from a scaffold, which lacked railings. Plaintiff then commenced an action against defendants, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed to the Second Department. 

On appeal, the Court held that plaintiff was entitled to “judgment as a matter of law” under Labor Law § 240(1). The court noted that plaintiff was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling. As defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact relative to proximate cause, summary judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff’s §240(1) claim.