Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

Latest News Button July 16, 2024 Read More WCM Wins Again! Important Labor Law Victory for Homeowners WCM Wins Again! Important Labor Law Victory for Homeowners Button July 12, 2024 Read More Proposed OSHA Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule Could Create A New Species of Labor Litigation Proposed OSHA Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule Could Create A New Species of Labor Litigation Button July 12, 2024 Read More A Culinary Coup, a Foie Gras Fête: NYC’s Ban of Foie Gras Foiled Again A Culinary Coup, a Foie Gras Fête: NYC’s Ban of Foie Gras Foiled Again Button July 11, 2024 Read More WCM Wins SJ on Horseback Riding Case WCM Wins SJ on Horseback Riding Case Button July 11, 2024 Read More Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Plaintiff in Trip and Fall on Sidewalk Upon Determine that There was a Substantial Defect of the Sidewalk Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Plaintiff in Trip and Fall on Sidewalk Upon Determine that There was a Substantial Defect of the Sidewalk Button July 11, 2024 Read More Latency Protects You From Negligence Until it is No Longer Latent Latency Protects You From Negligence Until it is No Longer Latent Button July 3, 2024 Read More How Reasonable Does a Reasonable Inspection Have to Be? How Reasonable Does a Reasonable Inspection Have to Be? Button July 3, 2024 Read More Lack of Knowledge Could Mean No Case Lack of Knowledge Could Mean No Case Button July 3, 2024 Read More New York Courts Generally Won’t Relinquish Jurisdiction Over Declaratory Judgment Action to Another State New York Courts Generally Won’t Relinquish Jurisdiction Over Declaratory Judgment Action to Another State Button June 21, 2024 Read More Sovereign Immunity and Charter Schools Sovereign Immunity and Charter Schools Button June 21, 2024 Read More One Two Many Dwellings: Southern District of New York Holds Building Is Not Covered As “Two-Family Dwelling” Under Homeowners’ Policy One Two Many Dwellings: Southern District of New York Holds Building Is Not Covered As “Two-Family Dwelling” Under Homeowners’ Policy Button June 21, 2024 Read More And the Case Goes On… And the Case Goes On… Button June 14, 2024 Read More Reasonable Excuse and Meritorious Defense Leads to Reversal of Unopposed Summary Judgment Award Reasonable Excuse and Meritorious Defense Leads to Reversal of Unopposed Summary Judgment Award Button June 14, 2024 Read More Bare Legal Conclusions in a Complaint Not Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss Bare Legal Conclusions in a Complaint Not Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss Button June 14, 2024 Read More Right to Arbitrate Waived by Prior Litigation Conduct Right to Arbitrate Waived by Prior Litigation Conduct Button June 14, 2024 Read More Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $8,000,000 Fee Award Not Consistent with the Language of the Parties’ Agreement Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $8,000,000 Fee Award Not Consistent with the Language of the Parties’ Agreement Button June 7, 2024 Read More Contradicting Much? Contradicting Much? Button June 7, 2024 Read More Not Liable for Negligence, But Still Possibly Liable for Negligence? Not Liable for Negligence, But Still Possibly Liable for Negligence? Button June 7, 2024 Read More First Department Holds Insurer May Disclaim Under Construction Classification Codes First Department Holds Insurer May Disclaim Under Construction Classification Codes Button May 31, 2024 Read More Should Coverage Be Provided Under Errors and Omissions Policy For Claims Against Victims of Phishing Scams? Should Coverage Be Provided Under Errors and Omissions Policy For Claims Against Victims of Phishing Scams? Button May 31, 2024 Read More Trial Court Slip Up: A Jury Charge For The Ongoing Storm Doctrine Trial Court Slip Up: A Jury Charge For The Ongoing Storm Doctrine Button May 30, 2024 Read More Independent Medical Examinations Must Be Exhaustive, Says NY Supreme Court, to Refute 'Serious Injury' Claims Independent Medical Examinations Must Be Exhaustive, Says NY Supreme Court, to Refute 'Serious Injury' Claims Button May 24, 2024 Read More Court Holds Plaintiff’s Expert Lacks Factual Basis (… and is Inconsistent with Plaintiff’s Theory of Liability Anyway) Court Holds Plaintiff’s Expert Lacks Factual Basis (… and is Inconsistent with Plaintiff’s Theory of Liability Anyway) Button May 24, 2024 Read More A “Spouse” or Just a Spouse? A “Spouse” or Just a Spouse? Button May 24, 2024 Read More First Department Finds Texas Law Applies in Asbestos Case due to Flight Attendant’s Tenuous Connection to New York First Department Finds Texas Law Applies in Asbestos Case due to Flight Attendant’s Tenuous Connection to New York Load More

News WCM Wins Again! Important Labor Law Victory for Homeowners July 16, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ WCM attorneys Mike Bono and Abed Bhuyan recently secured summary judgment in Nassau County Supreme Court on the basis of the homeowners exemption to the Labor Law. Hoskins et al v. Matteini, et al arises out of an alleged worksite accident at a Garden City single-family residence that was undergoing a gut renovation before the homeowner and his family moved in. Plaintiff, a delivery driver who was not routinely on the site, alleged he was passing moulding through the front window of the premises to another worker on site when he fell through plywood into a window well causing him injuries. Working with our client the homeowner, Wade Clark Mulcahy moved for summary judgment on the basis of the Labor Law’s exemption for owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for, but who do not direct or control the work. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability on the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241(6) claims against the general contractor, which cross moved for summary judgment. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion as against the general contractor on liability, denied the general contractor’s cross motion, and granted our motion after plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. That the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion on liability as against the general contractor underscores the importance of working with our homeowner clients and moving for summary judgment on the basis of the statutory exemption designed precisely to protect homeowners who did not control or supervise work done on their homes from liability for an alleged workplace accident. Previous Next Abed Z. Bhuyan Abed Z. Bhuyan Counsel +1 212 267 1900 abhuyan@wcmlaw.com Michael A. Bono Michael A. Bono Executive Partner +1 212 267 1900 mbono@wcmlaw.com Contact

Results Speak for Themselves We are litigators who think practically not abstractly. We are trial lawyers who understand coverage and coverage lawyers who try cases. We are advisors who help you manage your risk. PRACTICE AREAS Our Practice Areas OUR VISION What sets Wade Clark Mulcahy apart Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP attorneys represent clients who rely upon our success as advocates and our practical, results oriented advice and recognized expertise as trial and appellate lawyers across a broad spectrum of insurance, commercial and coverage matters. While we practice from our offices in New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Long Island, our clients regularly call upon us to manage risk in jurisdictions across the country. Our growth has been driven by client referrals. ATTORNEYS Latest News

News Proposed OSHA Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule Could Create A New Species of Labor Litigation July 12, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ On July 2, 2024, OSHA released a new proposed rule that would create substantial compliance and recordkeeping commitments on all employers conducting outdoor and indoor work in settings where temperatures regularly exceed 80°F. This could notably affect construction, agriculture, and manufacturing, but includes in its scope all general labor. Under the proposed rule, employers are required to develop and implement a work site heat injury and illness prevention plan (HIPP) with site-specific information. The employer must also designate one or more “heat safety coordinators” to implement and monitor the HIPP. Employers must also identify heat hazards, by tracking local heat index forecasts provided by the National Weather Service or by monitoring the actual temperature or heat index at the individual work site. The proposed rule, if approved, would require employers to provide workers with water and shaded or air-conditioned areas to take breaks when temperature at the worksite reach 80 degrees Fahrenheit. At or above 90 degrees (so-called “high heat trigger” conditions), employees must be provided a 15-minute paid rest break at least every two hours in the break area. When determining a high heat trigger is met or exceeded, employees must be notified of the importance of drinking water, employee’s right to take needed rest breaks, and how to seek help for a heat emergency. This proposed rule will enter the public comment phase upon publication in the Federal Register, and it is anticipated that there will be major industry pushback against the new regulations. However, it should be noted that the Biden administration has come out strongly in favor of this proposed rule, based on the rising rate of heat related illnesses and deaths among laborers in the United States. It can be expected that there will be significant pressure for the administration to push for the proposed rule as written. Should this rule come into effect, employers in high-heat sectors such as construction, agriculture, and manufacturing may, in addition to the administrative cost of compliance, face a new species of litigation in employees bringing suit for injuries premised on failure to provide employees with breaks, failure to provide water, or failure to provide sufficient monitoring of high heat conditions. Previous Next Emily C. Walpole Emily C. Walpole Associate 332 345 2226 ewalpole@wcmlaw.com Contact

News WCM Wins SJ on Horseback Riding Case July 11, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ WCM's Long Island office had a recent summary judgment victory on the case Shelley Headley v. Alana Payne et al with a successful motion filed by counsel Patrick Argento with guidance of supervising partner Gina Arnedos . This case involved a Plaintiff with 50 years of horseback riding who fell off of a horse owned by our clients, owners of Payne Farm. Patrick successfully persuaded the judge that no triable or material issues of fact existed as under both the Plaintiff’s version and our clients’ version, Plaintiff clearly assumed the inherent risk of riding a horse. In both versions, Plaintiff ignored not one but two opportunities to wear a helmet, either her own which she could have brought or one of the many the farm had available to borrow. She also presented herself as an expert rider and openly acknowledged that getting knocked off a horse is an inherent risk of horseback riding and that even the most well-trained horse can buck for almost any reason. This position was only strengthened by our expert Greg Coulson. Coulson’s expert affidavit clearly laid out how Plaintiff assumed the inherent risk of horseback riding and our clients did not increase that risk in any way. Plaintiff, in their opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact of any kind as the judge noted all the arguments they raised were limited to speculation and conjecture. Patrick’s victory on this motion is a huge win as Plaintiff claimed several significant injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, which could have led to massive exposure to the clients. Patrick’s hard work on this motion and the guidance provided to him by Gina led to a big win for our clients. For any questions about WCM's defense of equine claims, other sports-related accidents, contact Gina at garnedos@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Gina M. Arnedos Gina M. Arnedos Partner +1 516 873 0011 garnedos@wcmlaw.com Patrick J. Argento Patrick J. Argento Counsel +1 516 873 0011 pargento@wcmlaw.com Contact

News Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Plaintiff in Trip and Fall on Sidewalk Upon Determine that There was a Substantial Defect of the Sidewalk July 12, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ Polibio Abreu tripped and fell on a sidewalk adjacent to 129 Duane Condominium. His left foot contacted an uneven sidewalk flag, over which he tripped and fell, causing injuries that required acervical fusion. At the time that he fell, Abreu testified that he was looking straight ahead, his hands were empty, and his cell phone was in his pocket. He also alleged that the sidewalk was dimly lit at that time. The property manager of 129 Duane testified that 129 Duane was aware of the condition of the sidewalk prior to the accident, and that he had notified the Board of 129 Duane of the uneven flag. He further testified that the adjoining property had redone their sidewalk and he thought that the condition needed to be repaired by the adjoining property, 200 Church Street Associates LLC. The court noted that as a general matter, 129 Duane has a “non-delegable duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, taking into account the foreseeability of injury to others.” The court found that it was undisputed that the sidewalk flag was in front of 129 Duane’s property. Even still, 200 Church’s potential responsibility for the sidewalk maintenance did not create an issue of fact regarding 129 Duane’s failure to maintain the sidewalk. Abreu produced a photograph with a ruler showing the height differential to be more than one-half inch deep. The court deemed this differential to be a “substantial defect” as defined by the Administrative Code. A “substantial defect,” is not so easily defined. Therefore, to have this example is helpful for our analysis when assessing the liability in other sidewalk cases. Although 129 Duane argued that the defect was “open and obvious,” the court found that the Defendant was unable to demonstrate that the defect was open and obvious in a manner that should preclude liability. The photographs provided were taken during the day and Abreu testified that the lighting was dim when he tripped. The court found that even if they did find the defect to be open and obvious, it would only relieve the 129 Duane of its duty to warn of the defect and not preclude liability for allowing the defect in the first place. This case stands for the proposition that when making an argument that a defect is open and obvious, we must also establish the property owner was not liable for the defect in the first place. Because even though the defect may be open and obvious, if a property owner knew of the defect and failed to remedy it, they still may be liable. Abreu v. Brutus Assoc .pdf Download PDF • 728KB Previous Next Taylor Mitarotonda Taylor Mitarotonda Associate +1 516 240 5938 tmitarotonda@wcmlaw.com Contact

News Latency Protects You From Negligence Until it is No Longer Latent July 12, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ It is not surprising that a property owner is not responsible for a latent defect on their property that they would not discovery upon reasonable inspection. However, once they become aware of that defect and fail to fix it, THEN they risk liability. Damages caused by this latent defect which occurred before the landowner was made aware of it will not lead to liability against them, but hose after they become aware of it may. This was the primary issue in Huang v. Fort Greene Partnership Homes Condominium . Trista Huang was a property owner next to Fort Greene Partnership Homes Condominium, a collection of condominium units. On September 27, 20143, water began flowing into Huang's basement through the wall adjacent to Fort Greene's property. It was not until October 9, 2014, that the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) discovered that the cause of the water was a broken water service line in the Fort Greene's property. Although the DEP served Fort Greene with a three-day notice to repair the line, water continued flowing onto Plaintiff's property for another week, only ending on October 17, 2013, when the line was fully repaired. Defendants eventually moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. While this was initially denied by the trial court, the Appellate Division Second Department reversed most of this decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the negligence claim for damage prior to October 7, 2014, when Huang first emailed the Fort Greene about the water, because it found the broken water line was a latent problem, but they affirmed the denial as to negligence for after that day because Fort Greene now had notice of the problem, and the Court evidence they may have delayed repairing the damage. The main lesson to be learned from this case: Once a latent defect rears its ugly head, fix it. You are only shielded from liability due to latency until it's not latent anymore. Huang v. Fort Greene .pdf Download PDF • 905KB Previous Next Patrick J. Argento Patrick J. Argento Counsel +1 516 873 0011 pargento@wcmlaw.com Contact

Attorneys Filter by: Filter by: England Florida Associate Long Island New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Counsel Of Counsel Partner Filter Patrick J. Argento Counsel Michael A. Bono Executive Partner Maria E. Dalmanieras Partner Chip M-P George Of Counsel Steven F. Goldstein Of Counsel Alexander Hubschmidt Associate Sydney Kockler Associate Jack McGuire Associate Vito A. Pinto Partner Christopher Roppolo Associate Gary N. Smith Partner Dennis M. Wade Partner Gina M. Arnedos Partner Nicole Y. Brown Managing Partner Thomas J. Decker Of Counsel Brian Gibbons Partner Ross G. Gudis Associate Ryan Hunsicker Associate Carol N. Kotsinis Partner Taylor Mitarotonda Associate Sarah Polacek Associate Jean S. Scanlan Associate Corey Stein Associate Emily C. Walpole Associate E. Alexis Bevis Partner Georgia Coats Partner Justine Elias Senior Associate Andrew Gibbs Partner Andrew D. Henriquez Associate Steve J. Kim Partner Jason Laicha Associate Brian T. Noel Counsel Alexander Rabhan Associate Carl J. Schaerf Partner Anand P. Tayal Associate Jessica Whelan Associate Abed Z. Bhuyan Counsel Robert J. Cosgrove Partner Karl Eschelbach IV, Esq. Counsel Ishra Glasswala Associate Christina Herrera Associate Julia Klein Associate Bruce A. Magaw Of Counsel Martha Osisek Associate Peter R. Restani Partner James W. Scott Jr. Partner Domenica B. Tomasetti Associate

Robert J. Cosgrove Partner Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey +1 267 239 5526 rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com +1 212 267 1900 Professional Experience A courtroom-tested trial lawyer and appellate advocate, Executive Partner Robert J. Cosgrove has handled cases in state and federal venues across the United States as well as in the International Court of Commerce. Bob litigates a very wide range of matters, including premises and liquor liability cases; trucking and motor vehicle claims; product liability and product recall suits; personal care home, senior living and home health aide cases; and cases involving construction defects, catastrophic personal injury and significant property damage claims. He defends individuals and businesses in complex professional liability and errors and omissions cases, advises clients on fraud-based and other first- and third-party coverage issues, and investigates and litigates fine art, jewelers block policy and cargo cases. A Certified Information Privacy Professional, US, (CIPP/US) and a Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM) through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), he advises on cases related to fraud, data privacy, and cybersecurity claims and investigations. Before joining WCM, Bob was an Assistant District Attorney with the Nassau County (NY) District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted cases ranging from violations of environmental conservation law to gang assaults and high-level narcotics transactions. Honors and Distinctions Bob is OSHA 10 certified and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional, US, (CIPP/US) and Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM) through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). At Fordham University Bob was a Stein Scholar in Public Interest Law and Ethics (which is where he met his wife with whom he has four children) and a member of the Fordham Environmental Law Journal. He was inducted into Georgetown University’s Theatre Hall of Fame in 2003. Professional Activities A Thompson Reuter Super Lawyer, (No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. A description of the Super Lawyers selection methodology can be found here: https://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process_detail.html ), Bob is a frequent speaker and conducts seminars for organizations, including the International Underwriting Association of London and the Property & Liability Resource Bureau as well as for numerous clients. Bob’s writing has appeared in various books and journals. Bob is a member of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, a by-application-only national association of trial lawyers who have obtained multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements. He has been elected a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, a research organization dedicated to the study of law, legal institutions and legal processes. In addition to his work for clients, Bob sits as a judge pro tempore, handling settlement conferences in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. He also serves as a member of WCM’s Management Committee, the firm’s governing body. Bob is the former President of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel and the current Vice-president, Northeast Region of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. He is a member of the Regis Bar Association. Publications Start Spreading the News: A Primer on Cyber Legislation in New York, Defense Research Institute’s Data and Security Dispatch, Volume 6, Issue 1 (May 27, 2021) (co-author with John Amato). Is Our Biometric Data Protected, Counterpoint (December 2020) (co-author with Lauren Berenbaum) Recent Changes to PA’s Statute of Limitations Spark Coverage Questions, Counterpoint (January 2020) (co-author with Lauren Berenbaum). Can You Resell Misappropriated Art?, Freeman’s Newsletter, (January 2019) (co-author with Lauren Berenbaum). Porsches in London: Software, Cars and Recalls, Defense Research Institute Data and Security Dispatch, (December 2018). Somebody’s Watching Me: Defending Data Breach Claims, Counterpoint, (May 2015) (co-author with Adam Gomez). Winning One for the Gipper: The Looming Legal Threats to American Football, Counterpoint (December 2012) (co-author with Paul Clark and Adam Gomez). Surveillance! Out of the Shadows and into the Courtroom, Counterpoint, (April 2012) (co-author with Remy Cahn). How Many Acts Can Comprise a Single Occurrence? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Weighs In, 2 Bloomberg Law Reports (Insurance Law) 11 (2008). N.Y. Ins. §3420(d) Does Not Apply to Tenders Between Insurers, 235 N.Y.L.J. 74 (2006) (co-author with John Mulcahy). Sidewalk Liability Is Transferred from New York City to Landlords, 230 N.Y.L.J. 52 (2003) (co-author with Paul F. Clark). A New Vision of Lawyers, 26 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1669, (May 1999). Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Education J.D., Fordham University School of Law B.S.F.S., Georgetown University Bar Admissions New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Court Admissions Southern District of New York Northern District of New York Eastern District of New York Western District of New York District of New Jersey Eastern District of Pennsylvania Middle District of Pennsylvania Western District of Pennsylvania Second Circuit Court of Appeals Third Circuit Court of Appeals United States Supreme Court Download

Filter by: England Florida Associate Long Island New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Of Counsel Law Clerk Operations Counsel Partner Paralegal Filter Patrick J. Argento Patrick J. Argento Counsel Michael A. Bono Michael A. Bono Executive Partner Maria E. Dalmanieras Maria E. Dalmanieras Partner Karl Eschelbach IV, Esq. Karl Eschelbach IV, Esq. Counsel Ishra Glasswala Ishra Glasswala Associate Andrew D. Henriquez Andrew D. Henriquez Associate Steve J. Kim Steve J. Kim Partner Jason Laicha Jason Laicha Associate Taylor Mitarotonda Taylor Mitarotonda Associate Sarah Polacek Sarah Polacek Associate Christopher Roppolo Christopher Roppolo Associate Gary N. Smith Gary N. Smith Partner Mark Turner Mark Turner Market Representative Jessica Whelan Jessica Whelan Associate Gina M. Arnedos Gina M. Arnedos Partner Nicole Y. Brown Nicole Y. Brown Managing Partner Helene E. Dalmanieras Helene E. Dalmanieras Paralegal Chip M-P George Chip M-P George Of Counsel Steven F. Goldstein Steven F. Goldstein Of Counsel Christina Herrera Christina Herrera Associate Julia Klein Julia Klein Associate Bruce A. Magaw Bruce A. Magaw Of Counsel Brian T. Noel Brian T. Noel Counsel Alexander Rabhan Alexander Rabhan Associate Jean S. Scanlan Jean S. Scanlan Associate Corey Stein Corey Stein Associate Rachel A. Wade Rachel A. Wade Operations Manager E. Alexis Bevis E. Alexis Bevis Partner Georgia Coats Georgia Coats Partner Thomas J. Decker Thomas J. Decker Of Counsel Brian Gibbons Brian Gibbons Partner Michelle B. Gonsoulin Michelle B. Gonsoulin Chief Operating Officer Alexander Hubschmidt Alexander Hubschmidt Associate Sydney Kockler Sydney Kockler Associate Eileen McGlyn Eileen McGlyn Paralegal Martha Osisek Martha Osisek Associate Jenny Rajkowski Jenny Rajkowski Paralegal Carl J. Schaerf Carl J. Schaerf Partner Anand P. Tayal Anand P. Tayal Associate Dennis M. Wade Dennis M. Wade Partner Abed Z. Bhuyan Abed Z. Bhuyan Counsel Robert J. Cosgrove Robert J. Cosgrove Partner Justine Elias Justine Elias Senior Associate Andrew Gibbs Andrew Gibbs Partner Ross G. Gudis Ross G. Gudis Associate Ryan Hunsicker Ryan Hunsicker Associate Carol N. Kotsinis Carol N. Kotsinis Partner Jack McGuire Jack McGuire Associate Vito A. Pinto Vito A. Pinto Partner Peter R. Restani Peter R. Restani Partner James W. Scott Jr. James W. Scott Jr. Partner Domenica B. Tomasetti Domenica B. Tomasetti Associate Emily C. Walpole Emily C. Walpole Associate Team Members

Filter by: Filter by: England Law Clerk Florida Long Island New Jersey Paralegal New York Pennsylvania Filter Helene E. Dalmanieras Paralegal Mark Turner Market Representative Michelle B. Gonsoulin Chief Operating Officer Rachel A. Wade Operations Manager Eileen McGlyn Paralegal Jenny Rajkowski Paralegal Professional Staff

News How Reasonable Does a Reasonable Inspection Have to Be? July 5, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ In Doherty v. 730 Fifth Upper, LLC , Kyle Doherty alleges he sustained injuries when the glass door he used to enter the lobby of the Crown Building at 730 Fifth Avenue shattered, causing glass and metal debris to fall onto him. Specifically, Doherty stated that as he pulled on the interior vestibule door’s metal door handle, the top two connection points immediately failed, causing the handle to swing free, hit the floor, and shatter the door as he entered. The landlord, 730-Gen, filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed. It is undisputed that 730-Gen did not create or have actual notice of the defect in the door handle. However, 730-Gen failed to meet its initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged defective condition. Specifically, 730-Gen failed to establish that it performed reasonable inspections on the vestibule door’s handle. 730-Gen did inspect the interior vestibule doors following an incident that involved the exterior doors in the weeks prior to the accident. However, the testimony regarding the prior inspection was vague and unable to provide specific dates of the inspection and the steps taken to examine the door handle. Moreover, inspecting the door handle on a biweekly basis, when a daily inspection protocol was in place, was not deemed reasonable. 730-Gen also failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defect in the door handle was latent and not discoverable upon a reasonable inspection on the day of the accident. In moving for summary judgment on the ground that a defect was latent, a defendant must establish that the defect was not visible or apparent and would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection. It is significant to note what constitutes a “reasonable inspection” for premises liability. The development of policies to ensure specific and thorough periodic inspections are conducted may prevent potential liability. An evaluation of any premises liability claim must consider whether that standard of care has been met. Doherty v. 730 Fifth Upper, LLC .pdf Download PDF • 153KB Previous Next Contact