Latest decisions from the Appellate Division, Second Department

May 1, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

Recently, the Appellate Division, Second Department heard cases that include affirming a decision on a slip-and-fall due to inadequate evidence of hazard awareness, reversing a summary judgment in a guarantee dispute requiring further evidence, upholding a decision on driver negligence in a traffic accident, and reversing a summary judgment in a labor law case due to unresolved factual issues. Brooklyn Eagle photo by Rob Abruzzese

Slip-and-Fall appeal upheld after defendant fails to show lack of notice

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court decision that denied a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury lawsuit. The case, Rahman Hussain v. Neurology Continuum, P.C., et al., centers on an incident where the plaintiff, Rahman Hussain, sustained injuries from a fall due to a wet floor in a building owned by Kuzlena Trust and leased to Neurology Continuum.

In the initial ruling dated Dec. 20, 2022, by Justice Peter P. Sweeney of the Kings County Supreme Court, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied. The defendants argued they were unaware of the wet floor, claiming an absence of constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

However, upon appeal, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court’s order, affirming that the defendants had not conclusively demonstrated their lack of awareness of the condition. This decision is based on precedents that a property owner or lessee may be held liable for injuries caused by conditions like water or ice if they either created the hazard or knew about it and did not take action to remedy it in a reasonable time.

The appellate panel, consisting of Justices Colleen D. Duffy, Robert J. Miller, Deborah A. Dowling, and Carl J. Landicino, concurred in the decision, emphasizing the defendants’ failure to establish, without reasonable doubt, that they had no constructive notice of the hazard.

Summary judgment reversed in guarantee dispute, citing need for more detailed evidence

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has modified a previous ruling from the Supreme Court of Kings County in the case of Kitchen Winners NY Inc. v. David Triptow et al. The original order had granted Kitchen Winners NY, Inc. a summary judgment in lieu of complaint, which has now been overturned.

The case involves a dispute over a guarantee linked to a $450,000 deposit made by Kitchen Winners as part of a purchase agreement for disposable medical gloves, which were never delivered. The defendants, including David Triptow, were guarantors who had committed to repay the deposit if the goods were not delivered.

Originally, the Kings County Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kitchen Winners, ordering the defendants to repay the remaining $400,000 of the deposit. However, upon review, the Appellate Division determined that more evidence was needed beyond just the non-payment to resolve the obligations under the guarantee, noting discrepancies in the amounts and conditions listed in the associated documents.

Supreme court decision upheld as driver’s negligence contributed to accident

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has upheld a Kings County Supreme Court decision in the case of Mitchell Burgess v. Little Wolf Cabinet Shop, Inc. The Supreme Court’s ruling granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Mitchell W. Burgess, concerning liability and dismissed the defendants’ claim under the emergency doctrine.

The case stems from a collision involving Burgess and a truck owned by Little Wolf Cabinet Shop and operated by defendant Eric Wilson. The accident occurred when Wilson, attempting to avoid a suddenly stopped vehicle, crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with Burgess’ car. Burgess subsequently sued for damages related to his injuries.

In their defense, the defendants invoked the emergency doctrine, arguing that Wilson’s actions were justified due to the unforeseen circumstances. However, the Supreme Court found, and the Appellate Division agreed, that Wilson’s decision to cross a double-yellow line constituted negligence as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126(a). The court also ruled that the emergency doctrine did not apply because Wilson contributed to creating the emergency situation. Drivers who violate traffic laws and contribute to hazardous conditions cannot claim the emergency doctrine as a defense.

Summary judgment reversed as issues of facts remain in labor law Case

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has reversed a Kings County Supreme Court decision in the case of Jose Chuqui v. Cong. Ahavas Tzookah V’Chesed, Inc. The lower court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Jose Chuqui, on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 241(6), which was contested in the appeal.

The legal dispute arose from an incident on July 11, 2017, where Chuqui, while working as a carpenter during a remodeling project, was injured when debris from a nail gun struck his eye. Chuqui sued the property owner, Congregation Ahavas Tzookah V’Chesed, alleging violations of specific safety standards set forth in the New York State Industrial Code, particularly concerning the provision of eye protection.

Labor Law § 241(6) requires owners and contractors to ensure the safety of their workers, specifically mandating compliance with explicit safety guidelines detailed in the Industrial Code. In this case, the applicable rule under scrutiny was Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8(a), which mandates eye protection for workers engaged in potentially hazardous operations.

The Supreme Court had initially sided with Chuqui, agreeing that the congregation violated this regulation, thereby awarding him summary judgment on liability. Upon review, though, the Appellate Division found that Chuqui did not adequately prove that his activities at the time of the accident mandated eye protection as per the cited Industrial Code. Consequently, they concluded that a triable issue of fact remains, necessitating further examination in trial rather than a summary judgment. The case is now set to return to the lower court for further proceedings, potentially leading to a full trial to resolve these disputed factual matters.