News & Blog

Blog

OWNER LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW § 200 EXTENDED TO ADJACENT BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

March 3, 2016 • Posted By Lance E. Benowitz • Construction Claims

In Korostynskyy v. 416 Kings Highway, LLC., (Decided on 02/10/16) the Appellate Division Second Department has seemingly expanded the requirements of owners of buildings under Labor Law §200 to include ensuring the safety of workers on their property from the hazards created during adjacent building construction. Liability under Labor Law §200 codifies the overall common law duty of an owner and general contractor to provide a safe working environment at a construction site. This section requires that for a party to be found liable it must have supervision or control of the injury producing work or that the defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the alleged unsafe condition that caused the accident. Read More

PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN IN STORM IN PROGRESS CASES

February 10, 2016 • Posted By Jenna Elkind • Insurance Coverage

In Burniston v. Ranric Enterprises Corp., (Argued 11/20/2015) the Appellate Division Second Department has recently reiterated an exception to the storm in progress rule. The storm in progress rule states that generally, a defendant property owner or tenant will not be liable for a slip and fall accident involving snow and ice until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner or tenant an opportunity to rectify the hazards caused by the storm. Read More

Oscar Torres, v. St. Francis College, – Index No. 4493/12.

August 14, 2015 • Posted By Joseph A. French • Insurance Coverage

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc. the plaintiffs appealled from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan , J.) which granted those branches of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§200 and 240(1). In a St. Frances College gym, plaintiff was cleaning a basketball backboard while standing on an A-frame ladder. He fell from the ladder and was injured. He sued and brought claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1). Read More

No Physically Significant Elevation Differential Results in Dismissal of Labor Law § 240(1) Cause of Action

July 14, 2015 • Posted By Douglas R. Rosenzweig • Insurance Coverage

In a positive development for the defense bar, Justice Kathryn Freed issued a decision in Boress v. 200 Park, LP (113084/11 Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. April 30, 2015) dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action due to the lack of any physically significant elevation differential existing between the plaintiff and the object which struck him.

Read More

French & Casey, LLP Partner, Susan A. Romano and Associate, Ruth Kavanagh to speak in 4th Annual Sports and Arts Foundation Speakers Week

May 5, 2015 • Posted By • News

Ruth Kavanagh and Susan A. Romano are participating in the 4th Annual Sports and Arts Foundation Speakers Week.  The program provides students with insight into career paths and educational experiences.  Ruth and Susan will be speaking to students at IS 285K in Brooklyn

Miette Cvijenovich, et al., res v. Beacon Kids Wrestling Club, Appellant def NYLJ 1202719840091 – (Index No. 2251/12)

April 20, 2015 • Posted By Joseph A. French • Insurance Coverage

In this matter, defendant appealed an order of the Dutchess County Supreme Court, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. During a wrestling match sponsored by the defendant, plaintiff’s child allegedly sustained injuries when his opponent performed “an illegal or unreasonably dangerous wrestling move”. Subsequently, the referee of the match, an experienced high school wrestler, immediately disqualified the opponent after the alleged illegal move took place.

Read More

Court Grants Defendants Summary Judgment Motion and Precludes Expert Testimony

April 15, 2015 • Posted By Doug Rosenzweig • Insurance Coverage

In Toomey v. MillerCoors LLC No. 12-CV-3295 (DRH)(AKT) (2015), plaintiff William Toomey was working as a bartender when a bottle of Coors Light beer exploded between his index finger and thumb causing severe injuries to his index finger.  To demonstrate that the accident was the fault of MillerCoors, plaintiff relied on the expert testimony of George Pecoraro.  Pecoraro opined that the accident occurred because the glass bottle was not thick enough to withstand fracture.  He claimed that the Coors Light bottle was thinner than other brands of beer.  Mr. Pecoraro opined that a warning on packaging would have prevented the injury or that MillerCoors should have used thicker bottles.

Read More