New York Civil Appeals Law Firm

Representative Cases

New York Civil Appeals and Litigation Support


• In 230-79 Equity, Inc. v. Mancuso, 95 A.D.3d 785, 945 N.Y.S.2d 294 (1st Dept. 2012), the court upheld the motion court’s determination that the cost of repairing and maintaining the parties’ common retaining wall should be divided proportionately among only those parties whose properties touch upon the damaged section of the wall, pursuant to NYC Administrative Code §28–305.1.1.


• In Cedano v. City of New York, 93 A.D.3d 441, 939 N.Y.S.2d 430 (1st Dept. 2012), the court affirmed the liability and damages verdict, holding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have reasonably concluded that the City, and not some other entity, affirmatively created the condition that caused plaintiff’s accident.


• In Angamarca v. New York City Partnership Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., 87 A.D.3d 206, 927 N.Y.S.2d 2 (1st Dept. 2011), the court determined three important issues stemming from plaintiff’s damages trial: (1) the court held that the trial court’s preclusion of testimony about worker’s immigration status and expressed desire to return to his native country was a provident exercise of discretion because it would have been based on speculation; (2) the $100,000 award for past pain and suffering and $1 million award for future pain and suffering deviated materially from reasonable compensation to the extent it deviated from the sums of $1.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively; and (3) the $16.7 million award for future medical expenses for plaintiff with traumatic brain injury did not warrant reduction.


• In Montalbano v. 136 W. 80 ST. CP, 84 A.d.3d 600, 923 N.Y.S.2d 489 (1st Dept. 2011), the court held that NYC Administrative Code §7-210 does not make landowners liable for defects on sidewalks that they exercise control over but that do not actually abut their property. Thus, a landowner who repaired the sidewalk where plaintiff fell was granted summary judgment based on a survey that established that the defect was not located in front of his property.


• In Mathew v. A.J. Richard & Sons, 84 A.D.3d 1038, 923 N.Y.S.2d 218 (2nd Dept. 2011), the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to defendant retail store, holding that the injury-producing condition – the open lid of a barbecue grill – was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.


• In Rojas v. Schwartz, 74 A.D.3d 1046, 903 N.Y.S.2d 484 (2nd Dept. 2010), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law §200 claim against defendant homeowners, holding that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work and they did not create or have notice of the alleged defective condition.


• In Schwartz v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 945, 903 N.Y.S.2d 93 (2nd Dept. 2010), the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to defendant homeowners. The court held that the liability exemption afforded by NYC Administrative Code §7-210 to owners of two-family dwellings used exclusively for residential purposes applied to the defendants despite the fact that 50% of the dwelling was owned by individuals and the other 50% was owned in combination by individuals and a corporation.


• In Coogan v. City of New York, 73 A.D.3d 613, 900 N.Y.S.2d 645 (1st Dept. 2010), the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant, holding that, as the owner of a two-family dwelling used exclusively for residential purposes, he was exempt from liability under NYC Administrative Code §7-210. The court refused to adopt plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s occasional use of his laptop at home for incidental, business-related matters transformed his residence into an office.


• In Schindler v. Ahearn, 69 A.D.3d 837, 894 N.Y.S.2d 462 (2nd Dept. 2010), the plaintiff, an experienced elevator mechanic and inspector, was injured when the elevator cab that he stepped into, and knew had a faulty brake, precipitously descended. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant property owner, stating that a landowner need not guard against hazards inherent in the worker’s work, hazards caused by the condition the worker is engaged to repair, or hazards that are readily observed by someone of the worker’s age, intelligence, and experience.


• In Hodges v. P.C. Richard & Son Service Co., Inc., 59 A.D.3d 679, 873 N.Y.S.2d 490 (2nd Dept. 2009), the court was asked to determine whether plaintiff, a temporary employee who elected to receive workers’ compensation benefits from his general employer, a temporary staffing agency, was barred, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law §29(6), from suing defendant, a special employer. The court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.


• In Smith v. Matinale, 58 A.D.3d 829, 873 N.Y.S.2d 132 (2nd Dept. 2009), the court reinstated plaintiff’s complaint, finding that triable issues existed as to whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law §5102. In particular, the court found that any gaps in plaintiff’s medical treatment were adequately explained.


• In Angamarca v. New York City Partnership Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., 56 A.D.3d 264, 866 N.Y.S.2d 659 (1st Dept. 2008), the court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment to plaintiff, a construction worker who sustained catastrophic injuries after falling through a skylight opening. The court held that defendants violated Labor Law §240(1) because they failed to provide plaintiff with proper protection from such an elevated-related hazard. Plaintiff went on to obtain a $20 million verdict.


• In Baccash v. Sayegh, 53 A.D.3d 636, 862 N.Y.S.2d 564 (2nd Dept. 2008), a legal malpractice action, the court agreed with appellant that the lower court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict, and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, because plaintiff failed to prove that she suffered any direct damages as a consequence of appellant’s alleged acts of legal malpractice.


• In Sacca v. 41 Bleecker Street Owners Corp., 51 A.D.3d 586, 859 N.Y.S.2d 414 (1st Dept. 2008), the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to defendant landowner, finding that plaintiff pedestrian, who was struck by a window screen that allegedly fell from defendant’s building, could not rely on the theory of res ipsa loquitur because he could not establish that the screen and its mechanism were within defendant’s exclusive control.


• In Kermanshah Oriental Rugs, Inc. v. Gollender, 47 A.D.3d 438, 850 N.Y.S.2d 47 (1st Dept. 2008), plaintiff, a dealer of oriental rugs, sustained property damage as a result of a water leak from a washing machine sold by appellant and installed by respondent. The court, reversing the motion court, held that appellant was entitled to contractual indemnification and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees from installer.


• In Lee v. Boro Realty, LLC, 39 A.D.3d 715, 832 N.Y.S.2d 453 (2nd Dept. 2007), the court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the action was barred by a general release.


• In Bingham v. Louco Realty, LLC, 36 A.D.3d 845, 829 N.Y.S.2d 194 (2nd Dept. 2007), the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to defendants, noting that they failed to establish that plaintiff’s burn injuries were not a foreseeable consequence of defendants’ alleged negligence in improperly repairing the running hot water faucet in his apartment, or that their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of his injuries.