Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Published on:

by

Here, plaintiff’s accident arises out of the same facts and circumstances as the RN accident, as they were both employees of Rockledge and were standing on the same area of the sidewalk shed when it collapsed on July 12, 2003. Mr. OC and Mr. RN each asserted claims under Labor Law § 240(1) in their respective actions against defendants C and BW. The Bronx County court in the RN action determined that under the provisions of Labor Law § 240(1), these defendants were liable for the accident. C and BW had a full and fair opportunity to contest Mr. RN’ motion for summary judgment and they submitted opposition to that motion.

Defendants’ assertion that there has been a change in the facts and the law since the Bronx County decision and order of August 26, 2005 is rejected. The facts, as presented to the Bronx County court in 2005, have not changed. The jury in the indemnification trial was only required to determine whether York had any liability for the accident under the theory of contractual indemnification. The jury did not address the issue of whether C and BW were liable for the accident as this issue had already been determined. To the extent that C and BW assert that the jury verdict as to York affected the outcome of the RN summary judgment motion, it is noted that subsequent to the verdict of September 7, 2006 these defendants did not seek to reargue or renew the August 26, 2005 order and did not seek to perfect an appeal from that order. Moreover, during the course of the indemnification trial, these defendants admitted and represented to the jury that RN was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of his injury and that they had been found liable for his injury.

The court further finds that there has been no change in the law since the Bronx County court determined RN’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Defendants seek to rely on Beehner v Eckerd Corp., which was decided on November 30, 2004. In Beehner the court found that the retrieving of a serial number and other information after the work was completed was not a covered activity, and thus there was a bright line separating the enumerated and nonenumerated work. A review of the motion papers submitted in the RN summary judgment motion, which are submitted as exhibits here, reveals that the defendants’ opposing papers are dated March 7, 2005, some three months after the Beehner decision, and that defendants made no mention of Beehner. The Bronx County court did not render its decision until August 2005, some ten months after Beehner was decided.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Upon the foregoing papers the motion and the cross motions are determinated as follows:

Plaintiff OC and RN were both employed by Rockledge Scaffolding Corp, and they each sustained personal injury on July 12, 2003, when a portion of the sidewalk shed they were in the process of dismantling collapsed, causing them to fall some 20 feet. The sidewalk shed was constructed in 2000 alongside a building known as 275 West 96th Street, in Manhattan. It is undisputed that Mr. OC and Mr. RN were not provided with any safety devices. Defendant C Condominium is the owner of the building and defendant BW Management Group, Inc. (BW) is its managing agent. On July 20, 2001 C entered into a contract with York Restoration Corp. (York) to perform exterior masonry restoration and repair work to the building’s facade.

RN commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Bronx County against BW, Donald E. Wilson, York and C (Index No. 23398/03) to recover damages for personal injury he sustained in this construction accident. That court, in a decision and order dated August 26, 2005, granted Mr. RN’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claims against BW and C, and denied the motion as to York, as an issue of fact existed as to York’s responsibility for the accident, and as to whether York was a general contractor, within the meaning of the Labor Law. The court also determined that Mr. RN’s request for summary judgment on his other Labor Law claims were moot. York’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims was denied, and Blue Wood’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint and the cross claims for indemnification were denied.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This is the story of an incident that resulted in a personal injury claim from a commercial truck driver. The facts of the case are not being disputed by any of the parties involved. The truck driver drove his truck to the docks to deliver some cartons of merchandise to the railroad company. He unloaded the first crate and put it on the loading platform. He then stepped onto the loading platform and picked up the carton. After picking up the carton again, he stepped onto the pier floor. What he did not know was that the flooring was broken. When he stepped onto it, it broke further causing him to fall and sustain injury. There is no dispute that the injury in question was caused due to negligence on the part of the railroad company in maintaining its flooring.

The question arises in that the railroad company claims that the insurance company that covered the driver’s truck should cover the liability from this accident because the policy covers the entire truck delivery process including unloading the truck to the point where the goods are planned to go.

The insurance company that covered the truck agreed that if it was an act of negligence on behalf of the driver, then at that time, they would incur the liability for the accident. They maintain, however, that because the incident occurred because the floor of the pier was not maintained by the railroad company in safe standards that the liability rests solely with the railroad company and not in any part with them. They cited several precedent cases that confirm their opinion. The court had previously found that the insurance company covering the truck would cover the liability. However, on appeal, it was determined that the insurance company for the truck was not responsible and that liability rests entirely on the railroad company for failing to maintain a safe working environment. The justices unanimously reversed and vacated the prior decision based on the law and on the facts. This means that the victim must sue the railroad company to receive compensation from the accident.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

A motion for the dismissal of the verified complaint was filed by the defendants, who are insurance companies. The plaintiffs were limited partnership and two other corporations; one is a development corporation while the other is a management firm.

A suit for personal injuries were filed against the plaintiffs by a private individual who sustained injuries when he fell from the stairway of a building owned by the plaintiffs and such person was a tenant in the said building. As such, the plaintiffs are now claiming insurance from the defendants pending the personal injury case filed by the tenant against the plaintiffs.

The defendants issued an insurance policy in favor of the plaintiffs for one year, which included commercial general liability. The terms of the policy include the requirement of the insured to inform the defendants, as soon as practicable, of any occurrence that would result to a claim against the insured. This was the situation that happened when the tenant fell off a stairway of the building owned by the plaintiffs during the term of the policy where it may result to a claim against the insured. The defendants were notified of the accident of the tenant. Two witnesses testified to the occurrence of the accident; one was the building superintendent and the other was the property manager. No incident report was made in relation to the accident during that time.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Second Department. The defendant in the case is appealing and order that was made by the Supreme Court of Kings County. The judgment of the case was made by a jury in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $508,000.

Case Background

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she fell in a hole on the street when getting off of a bus that is owned and operated by the defendant. The hole was located on the line of the curb right next to the sidewalk. The plaintiff stated that the bus was parked at an angle so the front of the bus was next to the sidewalk and the back of the bus was several feet from the curb. The plaintiff states that she was going down the stairs to get off the bus at the rear and when she stepped down her foot went into the hole and she fell down.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The plaintiffs are seeking an appeal from an order made in the Supreme Court of Kings County that denied their motion for leave to serve a complaint on either the insurance carrier of the defendant or the lawyers who represented the company in a personal injury action. The order granted the defendants cross motion to impose costs upon the plaintiffs to the extent of $1000 to be paid to the lawyers of the defendants.

Case Background

A prior action was started by the plaintiffs to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she fell on a dance floor that was wet at the catering hall owned by the defendant. On the date that the case was scheduled for trial the parties settled the case in open court in front of a justice in the Supreme Court of Kings County. The plaintiff was awarded $7500 and signed a general release. A check was given to the plaintiffs and their attorneys.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The claimant of this particular case is Gwyneth Barbara Moravec. The defendant in the case is the City University of New York. The Court of Claims of New York is overseeing this case. The claimant.

Gwyneth Barbara Moravec, has made a motion to amend her claim so that it will further describe her trip and fall accidentthat occurred. She wishes to amend the claim to state the accident occurred when she was walking down the second flight of stairs as opposed to coming down the third set of stairs when she was leaving the Performing Arts Center of Queens College on the 17th of June, 2006.

The defendant opposes this motion and cross moves to dismiss the claim as it is originally filed stating that it does not comply with subdivision b of the Court of Claims Act that states a claim for personal injury shall state the time and place where the claim arouse, the nature of the claim, and the items that were damaged or the injuries that were sustained.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The plaintiff in this case is Jacqueline Stein. The defendants are 1394 Housing Corp. and Due Restaurant and Order. The Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County is overseeing this legal matter.

The defendant and third party plaintiff, 1394 Housing Corp. is moving for an order granting summary judgment on the third party complaint against the third party defendant, Tower National Insurance Company and declaring that Tower Insurance must defend and indemnify them to the claims that are made against them.

Tower Insurance has cross moved for an order to dismiss the third party complaint made against them.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Ruth Legon is the plaintiff and appellant in this particular case. The defendant and respondent in the case is Petaks. The First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York is hearing this particular case.

Case Discussion and Decision

The plaintiff and appellant, Ruth Legon is appealing an order that was made in the Supreme Court of New York County that granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed her complaint.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This particular case is being held in front of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County. The plaintiff of the case is Maria Gonzalez. The defendant of the case is the City of New York. The defendant has moved for an order to dismiss the complaint made by the plaintiff.

Case Background

The plaintiff is seeking damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on the 28th of June, 2001. She states that the cause of her fall was an unsafe, defective, and dangerous condition that existed on the sidewalk located at the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information