Labor Law liability for a fall from a scaffold or ladder.

Practice point:  Liability under § 240(1) depends upon whether the injury resulted from the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a device within the purview of the statute. So, there can be no liability under § 240(1) when there is no violation and the worker's actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Case:  Albino v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp., NY Slip Op 05953 (1st Dep't September 8, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Judicial estoppel in a matrimonial action.

A defendant files for summary judgment before plaintiff commences discovery.

Practice point:  Plaintiff's failure to commence discovery during the ten months between defendant's answer and defendant's motion to dismiss, without more, does not warrant granting the motion, pursuant to CPLR 3212(f), where the existing record does not negate plaintiff's theory of liability.

Case:  Gomez v. Kozot Realty Corp., NY Slip Op 06046 (1st Dep't September 15, 2016)

Tomorrow's issue: Labor Law liability for a fall from a scaffold or ladder.

Denial of defendant's summary judgment motion.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division reversed, and denied the motion to dismiss.  In support of their motion, defendants submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of both  plaintiff and defendant-driver. In those transcripts, the parties gave differing accounts of how the accident occurred, and there were issues of fact and credibility that could not be resolved on the motion. Given these issues, defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Student note:  Since defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion is denied without consideration of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition papers.

Case:  Chimbo v. Bolivar, NY Slip Op 05969 (2d Dep't September 14, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A defendant files for summary judgment before plaintiff commences discovery.

A claim of retaliation under the State and City Human Rights Laws.

Practice Point:  The Appellate Division found that plaintiff stated the cause of action where he alleges that he was passed over for promotion because of his accent. The Appellate Division noted that plaintiff's accent is inextricably bound to his national origin. In addition, plaintiff alleges that defendants subjected him to excessive scrutiny as a result of his persistent applications for promotion, and that this led directly to his suspension and termination.

Case:  St. Jean Jeudy v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06045 (1st Dep't September 15, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Denial of defendant's summary judgment motion.

Liability for negligent renovation of a party wall.

Practice point:  A property owner may be liable where, during renovation, the party wall is altered to the detriment of the adjoining property owner.  Where it is alleged that the damage was to the structural aspect of the wall, the property owner could be liable for weakening the wall, regardless of any care in performing the work. In addition, the property owner causing the alterations may be liable for trespass where the wall is penetrated.

Case:  Ehrenberg v. Regier, NY Slip Op 05938 (1st Dep't September 1, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A claim of retaliation under the State and City Human Rights Laws.

The doctrine of laches.

Practice point:  Laches is an equitable doctrine which bars the enforcement of a right where there has been an unreasonable and inexcusable delay that results in prejudice to a party.  Prejudice may be demonstrated by a showing of injury, change of position, loss of evidence, or some other disadvantage resulting from the delay.

Case:  Diecidue v. Russo, NY Slip Op 05907 (2d Dep't August 31, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Liability for negligent renovation of a party wall.

A late notice of claim is deemed timely served.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division determined that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petition and deeming the late notice of claim to be timely served, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]. The petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a notice of claim, namely, her physical incapacity and her attorney's investigation into the claim.  In addition, the petitioner adequately demonstrated that the defendant would not be substantially prejudiced by the delay.

Case:  Matter of Pazienza v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., NY Slip Op 05863 (2d Dep't August 24, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The doctrine of laches.

Judicial review under the New York Human Rights Law.

Practice point:  Under the statute, the scope of judicial review is extremely narrow and is confined to the consideration of whether the New York State Division of Human Rights' determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.  Substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact.  While it is more than seeming or imaginary, it is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence, or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Student note:  A court may not weigh the evidence or reject agency's determination where the evidence is conflicting and there is room for choice.

Case:  Matter of Briggs v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, NY Slip Op 05860 (2d Dep't August 24, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A late notice of claim is deemed timely served.

Legal malpractice.

Practice point:  To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. In order to establish causation, a plaintiff must show that, but for the lawyer's negligence, he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages.

Student note:  In order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, the defendant must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements.

Case:   Silverman v. Potruch & Daab, LLC, NY Slip Op 05857 (2d Dep't August 24, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Judicial review under the New York Human Rights Law.

A 306-b motion to extend the time to serve.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the granting of that branch of plaintiffs' cross motion, pursuant to CPLR 306-b and in the interest of justice, to extend the time to serve defendant. While the action was timely commenced, the statute of limitations had run when plaintiffs cross-moved for relief.  Plaintiffs re-served defendant within a reasonable time after learning that defendant was challenging service as defective, and defendant had actual notice of the action within 120 days of its commencement.

Case:  Rivera v. Rodriguez, NY Slip Op 05855 (2d Dep't August 24, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Legal malpractice.

Liability for an independent contractor's negligent acts.

Practice point:  A party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from an employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts.  There are exceptions to this general rule, one of which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep the premises safe. In that instance, as the legal duty is non-delegable, the party is vicariously liable for the the independent contractor's fault. 

Case:  Pesante v. Vertical Indus. Dev. Corp., NY Slip Op 05854 (2d Dep't August 24, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  A 306-b motion to extend the time to serve.