Motions to dismiss.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must afford the complaint a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.

5 Star Holdings NY, LLC v. Kohl's Dept. Store, Inc.,  NY Slip Op 05240 (2d Dep't October 18, 2023)

Here is the decision.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Res ipsa loquitur is not a separate theory of liability but merely a common-sense application of the probative value of circumstantial evidence. The doctrine permits an inference of negligence, but does not prove it. 

Lowman v. Consolidated Edison of N.Y., Inc., NY Slip Op 05226 (1st Dep't October 17, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Labor Law claims.

Plaintiff sustained injuries while working at a construction site where defendants were constructing a two-family home. The Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims as against defendants were dismissed, as defendants fell within the homeowner's exemption set forth in the statutes, which exempts from liability "owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work." Defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to the exemption by demonstrating that they intended to reside in one of the units, and, therefore, that the property was not to be used solely for commercial purposes, and that they did not direct or control plaintiff's work. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

In the absence of evidence that defendants exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work, the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were also dismissed.

Nava v. Franklin, NY Slip Op 05191 (1st Dep't October 12, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Slips and falls.

Defendant is not entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the basis that the alleged defect on the sidewalk abutting its property was not the cause of plaintiff's fall. Plaintiff consistently and unequivocally testified that she tripped on an uneven sidewalk abutting 1577 Third Avenue and that she immediately realized that a raised sidewalk flag extending about an inch above its adjoining flag had caused her fall. At her deposition, plaintiff pinpointed the alleged defect by indicating its location in photographs of the sidewalk, which depicted a raised sidewalk flag.

Defendant also is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that the alleged defect was trivial. In light of plaintiff's testimony, photos of the accident location, and the conflicting expert affidavits on the height differential of the sidewalk flags, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the defect was trivial. In particular, while defendant's expert testified that the height difference between the two sidewalk flags was one quarter of an inch and was trivial, plaintiff's expert concluded that the height difference was three quarters of an inch and presented a tripping hazard. Moreover, defendant waived any objection to plaintiff's expert's affidavit as untimely or speculative by not objecting to its being considered on the motion.

Shapiro v. 89th St. Dev. Co. LLC, NY 05211 (1st Dep't October 12, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

Service must be made in strict compliance with the statutory methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person' pursuant to CPLR 308, Here, the plaintiff purportedly served the defendant by the affix and mail method of CPLR 308(4). Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) cannot be made with due diligence. The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received.

Here, according to his affidavit of service, the process server made prior attempts at personal delivery of the summons and complaint at the defendant's residence at different times of the day between Thursday, December 21, 2017 and Friday, December 29, 2017. Although one of those times was on December 23, 2017, a Saturday, the attempts at service occurred at the height of the holiday season, when the defendant may have had reasons not to be home. The process server noted that holiday lights were on in the windows of the residence on December 23, and that both. floors of the residence were illuminated on December 26. Nevertheless, considering the holiday season, the process server's observations were not a sufficient basis to believe that the defendant was evading service. Moreover, the process server stated that he was unable to speak to a neighbor regarding the defendant's whereabouts.

In addition, in the year prior to the commencement of this action, in applying for a loan modification, the defendant was required to disclose his employer and address of employment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not try to serve the defendant at his place of employment. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the process server acted with due diligence before resorting to affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4).

Bank of America, N.A. v. Fischer, NY Slip Op 05112 (2d Dep't October 11, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Indemnification.

In order to establish a claim for common-law indemnification, a party must prove that it was not negligent and that the proposed indemnitor was responsible for negligence that contributed to the accident. 

Balanta v. Guo Lin Wu, NY Slip Op 05111 (2d Dep't October 11, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The Appellate Division may consider a legal argument that was not raised before the trial court if it appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if it had been raised.

Wagman v. Morgan Stanley Children's Hosp. of N.Y. Presbyt., NY Slip Op 05214 (1st Dep't October 12, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Objecting to service of process.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant waived any challenge to service because he actively participated in the litigation by formally appearing, addressing the merits of the petition, and raising objections about service upon another party before raising an issue about service upon himself. The Appellate Division noted that, as per an affirmation of service, relevant papers were served by email after the defendant, an attorney, consented to service by email.

Matter of Montal v. Koplen, NY Slip Op 05165 (2d Dep't October 11, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default.

In order to vacate a default judgment, the movant must establish both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense to the plaintiff's claims. A corporate defendant's failure to update the aaddress of its agent for service of process is not a reasonable excuse for defaulting. In the absence of a reasonable excuse, the issue of the defendant's defenses will not be addressed.

Shabtai v. HFZ Capital Group, LLC, NY Slip Op 05109 (1st Dep't October 10, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Respondent failed to oppose, or even address, the appeal of the denial of appellant's motion for an extension of time to move for summary judgment. Therefore, respondent concedes that point and the Appellate Division reverses that portion of the court's order, provided that appellant serves its motion for summary judgment within 60 days.

IO Experience Design LLC v. C & A Mktg. Inc., NY Slip Op 05038 (1st Dep't October 5, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Discovery.

CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." However, a party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, and unfettered disclosure. Pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), the Supreme Court may issue a protective order striking a notice for discovery and inspection that is palpably improper. The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Here, the Appellate Division determined that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to produce repair-related records for the stairway on which accident occurred and a list of all employees and contractors that worked on the stairway for two years before the accident. The plaintiffs demonstrated that those documents were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that a protective order was warranted with respect to those documents.

However, the Supreme Court erred in directing the defendant to disclose records for one year after the accident. Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case. There is an exception to this rule if the defendant's maintenance of, or control over, the accident's instrumentality is at issue. Here, there is no issue as to the maintenance and control of the stairway.

C.B. v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 04650 (2d Dep't September 20, 2023)

Here is the decision.