In Burnett v. Waterford Custom Homes, Inc., --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1652545 (4th Dep't, 2007), the plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from the roof of a home in which he was installing plywood panels. The plaintiff's employer was contracted by an individual defendant who intended to reside in the home. The individual defendant was also the sole owner of a company which was arguably the general contractor of the project. The Fourth Department upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6) claims against the individual himself, but not against the defendant company.

In Pecora v. Lawrence, --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1652501 (4th Dep't, 2007), the Appellate Division found that a trial court usurped the role of a jury when it granted a post trial motion setting aside the jury's verdict finding no serious injury. The jury found that the plaintiff did not sustain a significant disfigurement and her intermittent sensitivity to cold, heat and pressure did not constitute a permanent consequential limitation.

In Williams v. Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., CA 07-00008 (4th Dep't, 2007), the plaintiff sustained injuries when the vehicle in which he was a passenger was forced off the road by an unidentified vehicle. The plaintiff attempted to seek supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from the driver of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The Appellate Division held that the lower court properly granted the defendant's pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, reasoning that since the plaintiff did not recover damages from the driver of the unidentified vehicle, the plaintiff was not seeking SUM coverage, but rather uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.

In Bissel v. Town of Amherst, --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1652577 (4th Dep't, 2007), the plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder while performing roofing work. The defendant, Town of Amherst, sought indemnification from the plaintiff's employer based upon the argument that the plaintiff sustained a grave injury. The affidavits submitted from the employer's physicians, stating that the plaintiff had a total loss of use of both feet, raised a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff had, in fact, sustained a grave injury.

In Brierly v. Great Lakes Motor Corp., et al., --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1651953 (4th Dep't, 2007), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both the owner of the property and snow removal company when the plaintiff commenced an action for slipping on snow and ice. The Fourth Department modified the Order of the lower court, in part, reasoning that there was a question of fact as to whether the snow removal company exacerbated the dangerous condition by leaving a residue of snow behind after its services.

In Verel v. Ferguson Electric Construct. Co., --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1651937 (4th Dep't, 2007), a worker sustained injuries when he tripped and fell over electrical conduits protruding from the floor that had been installed by a subcontractor, Ferguson Electric. The Fourth Department upheld the lower court's denial of Ferguson's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim. The Court reasoned that although Ferguson was a subcontractor and did not possess supervisory control over the plaintiff, it was still subject to liability since the plaintiff's theory of liability was based on a defective condition. Ferguson had the authority to control, remedy or prevent such condition.

In Swierczynski v. O'Neill, et al., --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1651883 (4th Dep't, 2007), the defendant was employed as a caseworker by the County of Erie. The defendant had received permission to leave for the day and was on her way home when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The Fourth Department held that the County could not be held responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior since the defendant was no longer acting under the control or in furtherance of the County once she received permission to go home.

In Ellis v. Borzilleri, --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1651971 (4th Dep't, 2007), the plaintiff was involved in a chain reaction rear-end collision. The case was tried before a jury, who concluded that the defendant who did not strike the plaintiff's vehicle, but struck only the vehicle in front of his, was negligent but such negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. The Fourth Department found the jury's verdict to be consistent given the plaintiff's testimony that the accident felt like one big movement and their ability to reason and discredit the evidence presented.

In Strong v. ADF Const. Corp., --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1652408 (4th Dep't, 2007), the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein she arguably sustained a serious injury as defined by New York State's Insurance Law. The Fourth Department both upheld and overturned portions of the decision of the lower court. Despite the defendant's expert report, the defendant's own submissions of the plaintiff's chiropractic records which indicated a restricted range of motion were sufficient to raise a triable question of fact with respect to the permanent consequential limitation and significant limitation tiers of Insurance Law §5102(d).

In David Christa Construct., Inc. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2007 WL 1652409 (4th Dep't, 2007), the plaintiff commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking defense and indemnification from a subcontractor's insurance carriers. The defendant American Home sought summary judgment declaring that its coverage was in excess to two other policies. The Fourth Department upheld the lower court's decision not to grant the defendant's requested declaration since one of the other two carriers had not yet been joined as a party and would not have been bound by such a decision.

In Meegan v. Progressive Insurance Co., --- N.Y.S. 2d -- -, 2007 WL 1651872 (4th Dep't, 2007), the Appellate Division Fourth Department noted its disagreement with the Second Department. In contrast to an earlier decision by the Second Department (Affellini v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Inch. Co. (36 A.D. 2d 92)), the Fourth Department held that receipt of SUM benefits is conditioned upon a showing of serious injury.