News & Blog

Following a trial in Queens and despite plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) claims, a jury returned a liability verdict in favor of the defense.  The trial court subsequently denied plaintiff’s CPLR 4401 motion seeking judgment on the liability issue.  On appeal, the Second Department reversed the Lower Court, found for plaintiff on his Labor Law 240(1) claim, and remitted to the trial court for a damages trial.

A recent New York Post article has analyzed the role that a more gentrified Brooklyn has played in jury deliberations.  As an increasing number of wealthier residents move to Brooklyn, juries have been producing more positive results for the prosecution in criminal cases and for the defendants in civil cases. This result has been referred to as the “Williamsburg Effect.”

In Derouen v. Savor Park Owners, LLC (1^st Dept. 2013) (2013 NY Slip Op 05779) the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment as to the building owner, finding that there were issues of fact regarding how the accident occurred, and modified the lower court’s decision by denying Guardsman’s attempt to have Savoy’s claim for Common Law indemnification dismissed.

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

Personal injury attorneys on both sides of the aisles have become aware of at least two (2) IME doctors have been subject to professional discipline in the past six (6) months.  What is particularly alarming is that the professional discipline stems directly from the performance of the independent medical examinations these doctors were entrusted to perform.

Article 16 of the CPLR permits the culpable conduct of non-parties to be considered in apportioning liability among various tort feasors.  These non-parties, who are not represented at trial and may have never appeared in the action are commonly referred to as “empty chair” defendants.  It becomes the burden of plaintiff’s counsel to prove that the “empty chair” defendants do not bear liability for plaintiff’s injuries in order to obtain full recovery against the appearing defendant.

In a recent decision, the Second Department in Moncayo v. Curtis Partition Corp., 2013 NY Slip Op 03644 reaffirms that not every single case in which a fallen object case strikes a worker leads to a Labor Law §240(1) claim.  In this Queens County case, the plaintiff was allegedly injured while standing on the ground outside a school.  He was struck by a piece of sheetrock that had fallen from the third floor of the school building.  A co-worker had been using a power saw to cut out a piece of sheetrock from the ceiling to facilitate the installation of a grill for the air conditioning system.  A small piece of sheetrock fell from the co-worker’s hand then bounced off a window sill before falling through an empty window frame and striking plaintiff.