Author Archives: Vincent Terrasi

Bronx Jury’s Verdict Underscores the Value of Independent Medical Examinations (NY)

Posted on by

In a recent decision by the First Department, the Appellate Division took up the issue of whether it was proper for a Bronx jury to have declined to award any pain and suffering damages in a motor vehicle accident case where the plaintiff had already been granted summary judgment on the issue damages.

In Stanford v. Rideway Corp, 2018 NY Slip Op 03453, plaintiff was a rear-seated passenger in a taxi which was involved in a two-car accident on Manhattan’s FDR Drive. Plaintiff thereafter commenced a lawsuit against the drivers of both vehicles, alleging serious injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine. Plaintiff ultimately moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether she sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law Section 5102. The Court granted plaintiff’s motion, and at the time of trial, the jury was instructed that as a matter of law, plaintiff had “sustained a non-permanent medically determined injury that prevented [her] from performing her usual and customary activities for 90 out of the 180 days immediately after the accident.” In spite of that instruction, defendants claimed that plaintiff’s injuries were minimal and were unrelated to the accident, relying on the testimony of their expert orthopedic surgeon, who had performed an independent medical examination of the plaintiff. Contrary to the Court’s instruction, defendant’s expert had failed to find any objective evidence of injury to plaintiff’s neck or back, concluding that her lumbar and cervical spine were normal, and that she was not prevented from taking part in any activities.

After deliberating, the jury elected to award no damages at all for pain and suffering. That verdict was upheld by the Appellate Division, which determined that plaintiff’s evidence as to her pain and suffering was “not compelling,” and that a jury could reasonably have found that plaintiff’s claims were inconsistent with the objective medical findings of defendant’s expert orthopedic surgeon.

The court found that plaintiff’s counsel, apparently very creative at the summary judgment stage of the litigation, waived any argument that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent when counsel failed to object to the contents of the jury’s verdict sheet during the charge conference.  Had it not been for the defense’s expert presentation, the science would have gone unopposed and a pain and suffering award would have been awarded.

Thanks to Tyler Rossworn for his contribution to this post.

Definition of “Premises” Defines Extent of Coverage (PA)

Posted on by

A Pennsylvania federal court recently decided whether a landlord’s insurer can shift a shopping center’s responsibility in a slip and fall case to a tenant’s insurer, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Selective Insurance Co. of America, case number 2:16-cv-00759, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In this case, the plaintiff was injured while tripping on an allegedly defective sidewalk outside of Business 21 Publishing LLC, a tenant of Stoney Creek Center.  The plaintiff, an employee of Business 21, ultimately sued Stoney Creek Center and received a confidential settlement.  Stoney Creek Center’s insurer sought reimbursement from Business 21’s insurer for costs associated with defense and settlement of the suit, believing it was an additional insured under its policy.

Business 21 held a liability policy that extended additional insured status to companies that owned and operated the shopping center for claims of bodily injury involving premises owned or used by Business 21.  Stoney Creek Center believed it was an additional insured under Business 21’s policy, taking the position that “premises” included both internal offices and outside common areas.

In deciding whether additional Stoney Creek Center is owed insured status, the court turned its focus on the meaning of the word “premises” as used in the additional insured endorsement of Business 21’s policy.  The judge decided that Business 21’s lease agreement with Stoney Creek Center defines the word “premises” and not the policy.  The judge ruled that the terms of the lease agreement make a clear distinction between Business 21’s internal office space and its right to use the outside common areas, demonstrating that Business 21 intended for “premises” to solely mean its internal offices and not outside common areas such as the walkways and parking lot, thus determining that there was no additional insured coverage owed.

Thanks to Chelsea Rendelman for her contribution to this post.

Plaintiff Allowed To Take Swing against City For Fall at Citi Field (NY)

Posted on by

In Henn v. City of New York, Sterling Mets, et. al, plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries as a result of tripping and falling upon the sidewalk abutting Citi Field on July 6, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk and created the defective condition of the sidewalk. Defendants moved to dismiss under 3211(a)(7) – failure to state a cause of action. The lower Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and the defendants appealed.

The Appellate Division Second Department concurred with the lower court and ruled that defendants did not reach their burden to dismiss. The sole criterion on a 3211(a)(7) motion is whether the factual allegations articulated in the four corners of the complaint itself manifest any cognizable cause of action. “When determining a motion to dismiss, the court must 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.”

The Second Department held that the documentary evidence submitted by the ballpark defendants in support of their motion failed to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. Further, the ballpark defendants failed to establish conclusively that the plaintiff had no cause of action. That the complaint alleged the ballpark defendants owned, operated, managed, maintained, or controlled the subject sidewalk upon which the plaintiff was injured was sufficient to go forward on a cause of action and the documentary evidence submitted by the ballpark defendants—a “Stadium Lease Agreement” and a “First Amendment to Stadium Lease Agreement” – was insufficient to show they did not own, operate, manage or control the subject sidewalk and therefore, was insufficient to provide a basis for dismissal under that subsection.

The case was allowed to move forward to discovery and depositions of all parties.

Thanks to Paul W. Vitale for his contribution to this post.

Church is a 1-2 Family Dwelling Under the Labor Law’s Homeowner Exception (NY)

Posted on by

In Bautista v Archdiocese of NY, Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a scaffold while repairing a detached garage associated with a church rectory used for both residential and church purposes. Against the Church, plaintiff asserted common-law negligence and claims under the scaffold law and statute requiring owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for construction workers, and the workplace safety statute applicable to owners and contractors.

Plaintiff initially moved for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1), and the Archdiocese cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Both motions were denied. The Archdiocese appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Division First Department  reversed, granting the Archdiocese’ motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) under the 1-2 Family Dwelling exception for “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for, but do not direct or control the work”. The Court held that the certificate of occupancy indicated that the record constituted a dwelling and a private garage, and that Plaintiff’s assertions that the garage was exclusively restricted to use by teachers at an elementary school owned by the church were unsupported by the record, thereby failing to raise issues of fact as to the applicability of the homeowner’s exemption.

Moreover, the Archdiocese established that it did not have the authority to supervise or control the job and thus was not liable as an agent of the owner under Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6). As such, the Court held that the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should be dismissed because plaintiff’s fall from scaffolding involved the means and methods of his work, which were supervised and controlled solely by his employer.

Thanks to Margaret Adamczak for her contribution to this post.

Failing to Preserve Arguments for an Appeal and Facts that “May or May Not” Exist (NY)

Posted on by

In Gordon v City of New York, the plaintiff sued the LIRR, the City of New York, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) for injuries that occurred while performing excavation of rock under Grand Central Terminal.  Plaintiff fell from a ladder that slipped out from plaintiff and he fell to the tunnel floor while fixing lights 15-20 feet above him.  The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which included Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims while the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law §240(1) claim.  The lower court entered an order granting the City of New York and the LIRR’s motions for summary judgment and denying plaintiff’s motions against all defendants.

On appeal, the First Department affirmed the order granting the City of New York and the LIRR’s motions because affidavits were submitted based on the affiant’s work and job duties for the City of New York and the LIRR and their knowledge of and familiarity of their business operations.  The affidavits established that they did not contract for plaintiff’s work, nor did these defendants perform, supervise, or control any construction work at the subject premises.  As plaintiff’s sole theory of the City’s ownership was that it owned land on which the project was located was not raised before the motion court, it was not properly before the Court.  The plaintiff did not raise any other evidence to dispute the claims and the order granting summary judgment for the City of New York and the LIRR were affirmed.

However, on appeal, plaintiff’s entitlement under Labor Law §240(1) against the MTA, however was successfully argued because the record established a failure to provide plaintiff with proper protection for him to perform the elevation-related task of re-positioning the stadium light.  The MTA’s opposition with an engineer’s testimony that there “may or may not have been” platforms available to tie the ladder to, was not enough to raise a triable issue of fact.  The lower court reversed as to the MTA.

This opinion contains a lesson about the long term effects of failing to raise an argument in the motion court that not only affects the decision in the motion court, but also affects the appeal.  Thus, it is important to have counsel with the foresight to preserve arguments in anticipation of appeal.

Furthermore, the case also demonstrates the importance of early defense counsel oversite in investigating the facts and witnesses with knowledge in anticipation of motion practice.  Experienced counsel will be able to deal with gaps of knowledge from the witnesses provided by an insured.  Rather than rely on such ambiguous testimony regarding things that “may or may not” exist, experienced counsel should take steps to investigate further to find records or other witnesses  that may have actual knowledge of the circumstances of the accident that fill in those gaps to prevent a plaintiff being granted an early summary judgment.

Thanks to Jonathan Pincus for his contribution to this post.

Failure to Discontinue Constitutes Bad Faith, Frivolous Continuation Warranting Sanctions (NY)

Posted on by

A Justice of the New York County Supreme Court recently imposed sanctions on a plaintiff who refused to discontinue against a defendant that made a showing of non-involvement in the happening of the subject accident.  In Burgund v. Verizon, plaintiff commenced a Labor Law action after he tripped and fell stepping off of a ladder during his work for Verizon. During the deposition of building’s managing agent, plaintiff learned of the potential involvement of a third party entity known as “A&S.” Thereafter, plaintiff named A&S Group and A&S Construction Corp., among others, as defendants in a separate case that was ultimately consolidated.

Upon service of the complaint, A&S Group’s principal immediately contacted plaintiff, explaining that A&S Group had never performed work in the building, never worked for Verizon or any of the other named defendants as a subcontractor or in any other capacity, had no involvement with A&S Corp or its principals, and was not even in existence at the time of the alleged accident. However, plaintiff’s counsel refused to discuss the matter until A&S Group was represented by counsel.

Thereafter, A&S Group composed a series of letters over the course of a one-year period, each requesting a voluntary discontinuance against. Each time, these letters went unanswered. Ultimately A&S Group moved for summary judgment in its favor, denying any liability and asserting that plaintiff wrongfully included it in the action without any factual basis. The Court granted the motion, finding that A&S Group had presented affirmative evidence that it never performed any work at the subject building, had no professional relationships with any of the named parties, and was not even a registered corporation at the time of the accident.

Further, the Court determined that “regardless of whether [p]laintiff originally brought the action in good faith, plaintiff’s repeated failure to voluntarily discontinue the action, despite three specific requests… constituted a bad-faith frivolous continuation that warranted sanctions.”

Thanks to Tyler Rossworn for his contribution to this post.

Plaintiff Gets Second Bite at Defendant’s Dog (NY)

Posted on by

In Lipinsky v Yarusso (2018 NY Slip Op 05925), two co-workers and friends ended up as adversaries when the defendant’s dog bit the plaintiff’s left thumb.

After the dog bit the plaintiff, he filed a lawsuit in Suffolk County Supreme Court.  The defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to dismiss the lawsuit because his dog did not demonstrate vicious propensities, and even if the dog did, the plaintiff was not aware of such propensities.  The plaintiff’s opposition to the motion included an affidavit from the plaintiff’s neighbor stating that on two occasions prior to the incident, the defendant warned the neighbor to be careful near the dog because he bites.  Nonetheless, the Court granted the motion dismissing the lawsuit.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s findings.  The decision addressed the law and the facts, and reinstated the action because there were questions of fact regarding the defendant’s dog’s vicious propensities.

The appellate decision discussed the legal standard pertaining to liability for dog bites, holding that “to recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog . . . knew or should have known of such propensities” and vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation.   The Court also held that “evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm.”

Applying this law to the facts as stated in the affidavit from the plaintiff’s neighbor, the Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the lawsuit.  Specifically, the decision held that the affidavit from the plaintiff’s neighbor was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual and/or constructive notice that the dog had vicious propensities.

Thanks to George Parpas for his contribution to this article.

Can a Resident of a Homeowners’ Association Be Deemed an Invitee in the Common Areas of Their Own Community? (PA)

Posted on by

In Hackett v. Indian King Residents Association, the plaintiff, a resident of the defendant homeowners’ association, brought suit to recover for injuries she sustained after she fell on a common area leading to her town home in a residential community managed by the defendant.  The residential community in which she lived is a mixed town home/single family residence community in West Chester, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiff claimed that she could not see branches in the dark as she climbed the steps that evening.  After two days of trial, the jury found that the defendant homeowners’ association was not negligent.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by charging the jury that the plaintiff was a licensee rather than an invitee.  Particularly, she argued that by paying maintenance fees, she became an invitee, and that the defendant’s business is that of property manager and thus it is responsible for keeping common areas safely maintained.  Pursuant to the declaration of the homeowners’ association, the plaintiff used the common areas with the defendant’s permission.

The duty of the defendant to a licensee versus that of an invitee is different; the duty to an invitee is more stringent.  The Court reviewed the definition of licensee, and also looked to the facts, determining that the plaintiff was a resident of the community, she used the common area with the defendant’s permission, not by invitation, and the declaration granted residents an easement of enjoyment regarding common areas.   The Court found that this essentially conferred permission to each resident to use the common areas.  The Superior Court found that the trial court properly instructed the jury that the plaintiff was a licensee, as there was no evidence offered that the plaintiff entered the property upon invitation or for a purpose for which land is held open to the public.  The court noted that the distinction between invitation and permission forms the basis for distinguishing an invitee from a licensee.  Thus, the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff was a licensee was affirmed on appeal.

Thanks to Alexandra M. Perry for her contribution to this post.

Defect in an Interior Stairway in a Residential Building Was Trivial and Not Actionable

Posted on by

Although a landowner has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, trivial defects are not actionable. There is no predetermined height differential that renders a defect trivial. Instead, courts must consider the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury. Thus, a small difference in height or other physically insignificant defect is actionable if its intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances magnify the dangers it poses, so that it unreasonably imperils the safety of a pedestrian.

Stanley v. New York City Housing Authority, 2018 NY Slip Op 03726 (2nd Dep’t, May 23, 2018), demonstrates the rule in action. Plaintiff claims to have tripped on a raised nosing of a step on an interior staircase of a residential building causing a fall. During sworn testimony, plaintiff provided photographs of the alleged defective condition on the stairway. Defendants retained an expert to conduct an inspection of the accident location in light of the testimony. The expert concluded that the alleged defect was located three inches from the left stairway wall, directly underneath the handrail, and that the height differential between the nosing and the stair itself measured approximately one-half inch at its greatest depth.

The defect was deemed trivial based on the location of the defect, which was not on a walking surface of the stairway, along with the fact that the height differential was minimal and the danger posed to the safety of a pedestrian was marginal. Accordingly, the Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the lower court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary and reversed the lower court’s decision thereby granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Thanks to Margaret Adamczak for her contribution to this post.

Indemnification Necessary Despite Procuring Insurance

Posted on by

A contractor providing insurance to an owner that includes a provision that the policy will be primary may think he has already prevented exposure from any indemnification clause in their contract with the owner as the owner has already been made whole from future liability.  However, the underlying contract language may include additional clauses that render the procuring of liability insurance as a separate and unrelated obligation from the obligation to indemnify and hold harmless.  Thus, owners, even with procured insurance from a contractor, may still seek indemnification, even from the party that provided the original insurance.

According to New York State Department of Transportation v. North Star Painting Company, Inc., 2018 WL 3321495, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 05087 (4th Dep’t July 6, 2018) a contractor that procures a policy with a “policy as primary” clause was ruled to have not discharged its duty to provide indemnification, and thus, a conditional order for indemnification of an owner by the contractor who already provided an insuring policy was upheld.

In North Star Painting, Inc., a contractor to the State of New York Department of Transportation agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the State of New York from claims resulting from the work stated in the contract.  However, the contract further required the contractor to procure an owners and contractors protective liability (OPCL) policy to insure the State of New York.  Within the policy procured by the contractor, the coverage under the OCPL policy was to be primary and, further, the insurer would not seek contribution from other insurance available to plaintiff.  As the policy provides primary coverage, one would think that the procuring of insurance has already fulfilled the indemnification obligations of the contractor.

However, such a policy does not prevent an owner from still seeking indemnification when the underlying contract specifically exempts the procuring of insurance from fulfilling or discharging the indemnification requirement.  In North Star Painting, Inc., the  underlying contract included a clause that the indemnification and hold harmless clauses shall not “be deemed limited or discharged by the enumeration or procurement of any insurance for liability for damages imposed by law” upon the contractor.

When complete, clear and unambiguous, a contract must be enforced according to its plain meaning. The Court determined that the clause prevented the procurement of insurance by the contractor as a means to have already fulfilled or discharged their obligation to indemnify the owner.  As such, the Court found that NYSDOT was entitled to the conditional order of contractual and common-law indemnification against the contractor.

As this case demonstrates, there is nuance between the procurement of insurance and indemnification.  Even when one procures insurance for the other party in the contract, and even as per the contract, one may still be potentially separately obligated for indemnification.  Therefore, experienced counsel should be consulted regarding how to diminish or prevent an entity’s additional exposure through indemnification even when an insurance policy has already been procured for the other contracting party.

Thanks to Jonathan J. Pincus for his contribution to this post.