News & Blog

In Rajkumar v. Markham Gardens LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 51581 (NY: Supreme Court 2013), Justice Jack Battaglia ruled that Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply where the imputus of an object falling at a construction site was not a direct consequence of gravity operating on the object.  For example, in Rajkumar, plaintiff alleged that while he was helping to erect a balcony, he slipped and fell, and subsequently, the 200 pound beam he was holding fell on top of him.  Immediately prior to the accident, plaintiff was holding the subject beam inches above his shoulders and standing on construction debris.  Judge Battaglia of Kings County Supreme Court held that, because the beam fell as a result of plaintiff slipping, the accident was not within the narrow confines of the strict liability statute.

The Second Department recently affirmed Queens Supreme Court Justice Taylor’s decision granting summary judgment to an out of possession landlord. See Dulce Castillo v. Wil-Cor Realty Co., Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 05871

In Ware v. Atlantic Towers Apt. Corp. et al, 2013 N.Y. Slip. Op. 51177(U), Kings County Supreme Court’s Judge Battaglia struck a building owner and manager’s cross-claims against a third defendant, SLF, where the owner and manager failed to produce surveillance footage of the trip and fall accident claimed in the lawsuit, thus depriving SLF of key and incisive evidence in support of its defense.

The Second Department recently gave hope to some Labor Law §240 defendants in its decision in Hugo v. Sarantakos, 108 A.D.3d 744, 970 N.Y.S.2d 245 ( 2^nd Dept. 2013).

In Morales v. Longview Academy of Extreme Martial Arts, (101999/11,) an eleven year old judo student sustained a fractured ankle when a senior judo student, who was older, taller, and heavier, performed a foot sweep, a judo technique, to the side of the minor’s foot.   The plaintiff argued that his injuries resulted solely from the defendant’s negligent supervision of the judo class. The court disagreed noting that the plaintiff failed to make out a case for lack of supervision.  The Supreme Court, Richmond County granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, thereby, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212.

Common Law Joint and Several Liability:

Under the common law, joint and several liability allows a personal injury plaintiff to pursue multiple defendants as if they were jointly liable and it becomes the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective proportions of culpability and payment.  In other words, a plaintiff may recover all of the damages from any single defendant, regardless of his individual share of culpability, and that defendant has to pursue other defendants for contribution to their respective share of liability.

In a recent Second Department case, the Second Department addressed indemnification and contribution issues in light of a plaintiff who was illegally in this country seeking benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law.  In an underlying related case, New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v. Microtech Contr. Corp., N.Y.S.2d (2d Dept. 2012), 2012 N.Y. Slip. Op. 06287, the defendant had moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claims for contribution and indemnification had been barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §11.  The Second Department overturned and reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant.

There is often confusion as to whether you should have a Will or a Revocable Living Trust as your estate planning vehicle.  This article will provide an overview of the major differences between a Will and a Living Trust and how these documents can help in the disposition of assets after death.

In a recent October 2012 decision, the Court of Appeals refused to allow an expansion of a school’s potential liability for off-school premises incidents involving pupils from the school.  See Stephenson, et al. v. The City of New York, (2012).

In Milton H. Green Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, et al., the Ninth Circuit held that Marilyn Monroe did not own a right of publicity at the time of her death, and therefore, the right did not pass through her estate during probate and was not included in the assets held by Marilyn Monroe LLC (“the LLC”).