Archive:December 2010

Hayes v. Delaware-Chenango-Madisonotsego Board of Cooperative Educ. Servs., 79 A.D.3d 1405, 912 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

In Hayes, the plaintiff was seriously injured while performing construction work at an educational agency site.  He filed a late notice of claim six months later, which the Supreme Court permitted.  The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed that discretion to accept a late notice rests with the trial court, finding no prejudice against the defendants from a “relatively brief” delay.
 

Chenango Sports, Inc. v. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N.A. #17, 2010 WL 5391541 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2010)

In this case, the plaintiff contractor was hired to install field turf outside a public school.  The two defendant labor unions argued that the parties had signed an agreement to use labor from their unions, but that the plaintiff then instead used labor from a carpenter’s union, claiming that the work could only be performed by a carpenter’s union (as a labor jurisdictional matter).  The dispute centered around whether the labor agreement included the two unions in question – it did not include their signatures – and whether the plaintiff had actually begun using their labor before hiring the carpenter’s union workers.  The defendant unions filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the underlying arbitration proceedings.  The District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the plaintiff’s motion, dismissing the arbitration claims on the grounds that the dispute was jurisdictional in nature and therefore outside the reach of the arbitration agreement.  After resolving this question, the only question of federal law implicated in the dispute, the court remanded to the New York Supreme Court for resolution of the factual disputes.

Exeter Building Corp. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 79 A.D.3d 927, 913 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

In this case, the plaintiff Exeter served as general contractor for a condominium development project.  The defendant insurance company Scottsdale issued several commercial general liability (CGL) policies that specifically excluded damage to property that arises out of faulty work.  The underlying action against Exeter alleged substantial defects in the work.  Scottsdale provided a law firm for Exeter’s defense but withdrew coverage on several claims when it learned of their nature.  Exeter then sued for a judgment ordering Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it.  The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court and granted Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment, finding that CGL policies like this one are not intended to indemnify contractors against claims that their work is defective.

Mott v. Tromel Constr. Corp., 79 A.D.3d 829, 912 N.Y.S.2d 685 (NY App. Div. 2010)

In Mott, the plaintiff was injured on an elementary school construction site when he tripped on a piece of string stretching into the hallway from a classroom.  He sued the contractor, the school, and a subcontractor that was allegedly responsible for placing the string as part of a flooring project.  The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the defendant’s motions for summary judgment, finding that there were triable issues of fact regarding (1) whether or not the contractor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, and (2) whether the string posed a “tripping hazard” within the meaning of New York’s local rules, whether the hallway was a “passageway” under the law, and whether the string was integral to and consistent with the work the plaintiff was performing.

Whitehead v. City of New York, 79 A.D.3d 858, 913 N.Y.S.2d 697 (NY App. Div. 2010)

In Whitehead, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when a load of steel tubes rolled out of a hoist when the bindings were removed; the plaintiff fell and was struck by two tubes.  He sued the general contractor and owner under New York’s labor law and common law negligence theories.  The owner impleaded the steel construction subcontractor for contribution and indemnification.  The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was not subject to an elevation-related hazard since the steel tubes were at the same level as him.  The court also denied the third-party plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it was untimely submitted with no excuse offered for the delay.

Ramsey v. Leon D. Dematteis Constr. Corp., 79 A.D.3d 720, 912 N.Y.S.2d 654 (NY App. Div. 2010)

In Ramsey, the plaintiff, an apprentice elevator mechanic and employee of a subcontract elevator company, was injured in a fall while constructing an elevator shaft as part of a school construction project.  He sued the general contractor and the property owner for failing to provide proper safety protection and failing to maintain an elevated workplace free from dangerous conditions under New York’s Labor Law and common law negligence theories.  The contractor had provided two aluminum planks, which stretched about a foot in either direction beyond the shaft, for the plaintiff to stand on, secured by placing wooden beams on top of either end.  The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied both the plaintiff’s and contractor defendant’s motions for summary judgment, finding that triable issues of fact existed as to whether the safety precautions were sufficient, and as to whether the materials plaintiff allegedly slipped on were integral to the work or mere “debris.”  But the court found that the building owner was entitled to summary judgment since it had no actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition.

Metro. Steel Indus., Inc. v. Graphics for Steel Structures, Inc., 2010 WL 5583038 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2010)

In Metropolitan Steel Industries, the plaintiff contractor alleged that the defendant subcontractor breached its contract with the plaintiff by failing to completely perform; the defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid balance.  The plaintiff then sought to amend its complaint and assert a claim for fraudulent inducement on the grounds that the defendant failed to disclose its intention to use outsourced labor, but its motion was not timely filed.

The magistrate judge dismissed the fraudulent inducement claim on the grounds that there was no confidential or fiduciary relationship between the parties, as well as because they were duplicative of the primary breach of contract claim, since the terms in question were directly related to the parties’ agreement, rather than being collateral in nature.

DeFilippo v. Knolls of Melville Redev. Co., No. 00-21112, 2010 WL 4904665 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. Nov. 30, 2010)

In DeFilippo v. Knolls of Melville Redevelopment Co., a subcontractor employed the plaintiff, who sustained personal injuries while working.  Plaintiff originally brought suit against four defendants but lost at summary judgment.  Plaintiff then sought to amend his complaint to add a new defendant, Arlen Contracting Corp. Arlen argued that plaintiff’s claims against it were time barred by the three-year statute of limitations.  Plaintiff alleged that the claims should go forward because the lower court properly held that his claims were exempted from the statute of limitations.  The court disagreed and found that because Arlen did not have an opportunity to oppose plaintiff’s argument, as it was not a party to the lower court’s decision, Arlen would be given a chance to litigate the issue.