PHILIPPS ELECTED AS PRESIDENT OF LOCAL BAR
ASSOCIATION Full Story
Quick Links...
|
|
|
|
Landlord Has No Constructive Notice of Hour-Old Black Ice
|
|
In Gilbert v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America, (4th Dept., 2007), the plaintiff sought
damages for injuries she sustained when she
slipped and fell on black ice in a parking lot owned by
the defendant church. The plaintiff contended only that
the church had constructive notice of the condition and
did not allege that the church created or had actual
notice of the black ice. The Appellate Division ruled
the Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's
motion for summary judgment where the record
indicates the plaintiff was in the church approximately
an hour and a half and the condition was not present
when she exited her vehicle. Further, evidence
indicated that water dripping from the plaintiff's own
car was the likely cause of the icy condition. The Court
ruled therefore, that the church did not have
constructive notice of the dangerous condition where
the condition had existed for only, at most, an hour
and a half.
|
|
How High Were You Again?
|
|
In Capasso v. Kleen All of America, Inc., (4th
Dept., 2007), plaintiff construction worker fell from
scaffolding in an elevator and lacerated his arm. The
plaintiff moved for summary judgment under a Labor
Law 240(2) claim on the grounds that the scaffold was
50 feet from the ground and there were no safety rails
as required by law. The statute provides that
scaffolds "more than 20 feet from the ground to floor"
must be equipped with safety rails. The Appellate
Division overturned the lower court's granting of
plaintiff's motion holding that while the scaffold was
over 50 feet above the floor of the elevator shaft, it was
only 6 or 7 feet from the floor of the elevator car upon
which it rested and in which the plaintiff was working.
This created an issue of fact thereby precluding the
court form granting plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment.
|
|
Five-Gallon Bucket is Functional Equivalent of a Ladder
|
|
In Wilson v. Niagara University, (4th Dept.,
2007), a laborer engaged in mold remediation injured
his back when a five-gallon bucket he was standing
on overturned. At the time, the laborer and his
coworkers were using the bucket as a step to gain
access to a crawlspace. The defendant moved for
summary judgment as to the plaintiff's Labor Law 240
(1) claim contending that plaintiff's fall was not the
type of elevation-related risk for which this statute
provides protection. The Appellate Division
disagreed, affirming the lower court's denial of
defendant's motion and holding that the bucket from
which the plaintiff fell was serving as the functional
equivalent of a scaffold or ladder.
|
|
Participation in Arbitration is a Concession of Coverage
|
|
In National Grange Mutual Insurance Co. v. T.C.
Concrete Construction, Inc., (4th Dept., 2007),
plaintiff commenced an action seeking a declaration
that it was not obligated to indemnify the insured
defendants where the insured failed to provide timely
notice of the accident, loss or claim as required by the
insurance policy. The insured counterclaimed
seeking indemnification for attorney's fees incurred in
defending the underlying action as well as the
immediate coverage action. The Appellate Division
affirmed the decision of the lower court holding that
the plaintiff impliedly conceded coverage of the
defendant when it participated in a binding arbitration
and had thus waived its right to disclaim coverage.
The court held the plaintiff was responsible for all
defense costs, including the defense of the
immediate action because "an insurer's responsibility
to defend reaches the defense of any actions arising
out of the occurrence," including those against an
insurer seeking to avoid coverage.
|
|
Watch for Stopped Traffic
|
|
In Green v. Pamela Sivret, (4th Dept., 2007),
the defendant, while following too closely in stop and
go traffic, ran her car into the stopped car in front of
her. The collision resulted in injuries to the plaintiff
child, a passenger in the stopped car. The plaintiff
was granted summary judgment and met her burden
by showing that her stopped car was rear-ended by
the defendant. The Appellate Division affirmed the
lower court's holding and granted plaintiff's motion
where the plaintiff established a prima facie case and
defendant failed to submit a "nonnegligent
explanation for the collision." Indeed, defendant's only
excuse for the accident was that she was looking out
her passenger side window and did not see the
stopped car ahead of her.
|
|
Evidence of Severe Intoxication Raises Issue of Fact in Punitive Damages Case
|
|
In Schragel v. Juszczyk, (4th Dept., 2007),
plaintiff commenced an action seeking compensatory
and punitive damages for injuries she sustained
when her vehicle was struck by the defendant's
vehicle. The lower court initially dismissed the
plaintiff's claims for punitive damages holding that the
plaintiff presented no triable issue as to whether the
defendant's conduct was wanton and reckless. The
Appellate Division reversed this dismissal finding that
the plaintiff had indeed raised a triable issue by
presenting evidence as to the level of defendant's
intoxication while driving. Among the evidence
presented by the plaintiff was the .026 BAC level of the
defendant, the fact that he failed numerous field
sobriety tests performed at the scene and the
defendant's testimony that he had consumed four 22-
ounce beers and five tequila shots prior to driving.
The Appellate Division held that this level of
intoxication and his "utter disregard" for the "rights and
safety of others" raised an issue of fact whether an
award of punitive damages was warranted.
|
|
Arbitration Award Upheld Where a Rational Basis for Award Existed
|
|
In In re Mays-Carr, (4th Dept., 2007), plaintiff
brought an action seeking to set aside an arbitration
award, as well as a new hearing before a different
arbitrator on the grounds that the arbitrator had
exceeded his power. In the underlying arbitration, the
arbitrator determined petitioner was not entitled to an
award for economic loss in excess of her basic
economic loss. The Appellate Division rejected
petitioner's argument and affirmed the arbitrator's
decision not to award economic damages in excess
of basic economic loss where petitioner was able to
work and her bill of particulars stated "[a]ll lost wages
were reimbursed." The Court upheld established
New York precedents in holding that arbitrator's
determination will not be overturned where there is a
rational basis for his decision.
Prepared by
Patrick D.
Slade
|
|
|