Attorney Secure Pass Online Renewal

Since October 22, 2001, attorneys entering many facilities of the state court system have been required to pass through magnetometers as well as x-ray examination of any briefcases, bags, boxes or other containers.  In April 2002, the New York State Unified Court System began issuing an attorney identification card known as the "Secure Pass."  The Secure Pass permits attorneys to bypass the aforementioned security measures in certain state courts while a high level of court security is maintained.  Accordingly, the Secure Pass provides convenience to attorneys who may be entering the facilities on a daily basis while additionally reducing the burden on the state court officers.  Although based upon experience there are exceptions where the Secure Pass is not honored and the attorney must be subject to search such as in the federal courts, New York County Surrogate's Court, and the Appellate Divisions for the First and Second Departments.

 

Secure Pass cards were previously valid for two years and are now valid for five years.  The procedure for renewal has also been amended to permit electronic filing effective July 1, 2015.  Attorneys may now renew their Secure Pass through the state Unified Court System web site.  Further instructions and information can be found at http://www.nycourts.gov/attorneys/registration/securepass.shtml

Kings County Supreme Court CCP

The Centralized Compliance Part (CCP) of the Supreme Court, Kings County is where all civil litigation must pass.  Case conferences as well as discovery motions are heard in the Part which makes for two lengthy calendars, a crowded courtroom, and sometimes orders that are not issued until afternoon.  The mandatory calendar call is not held until 10:45, and the default calendar at 11:45.  If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute among themselves the matter will be heard by a court attorney referee who will ultimately refer the matter to the Individual Assignment Part judge if a resolution cannot be mediated.  In the event that the matter is referred to the IAS Part, it is unlikely that it will be heard and decided that day but will instead be sua sponte scheduled for an available return date in accordance with the given IAS Part calendar.      

The link to the Kings County Supreme Court, Civil Term Rules is provided below.  The rules for CCP are found within section E. 

https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/KingsCivilSupremeRules.shtml#CCP

      

Daylight Savings Time Ends

On Sunday, November 1, at 2:00 a.m., the clocks are turned back one hour for the end of Daylight Savings Time (DST).  However, there's rumored to be a movement gaining momentum within the legal profession to have DST end at 5:00 p.m., on the preceding Friday.  As with all things constructed by attorneys, there's a logical reason for this cause.  Having DST end during a workday would of course result in a gain of one billable hour; and, perhaps once and for all irrefutably prove to clients beyond a reasonable doubt that it is in fact possible for an attorney to verifiably bill 25 hours in one day. 😏

Expansion of Mandatory E-Filing in New York County

By Administrative Order mandatory e-filing in New York County was expanded on February 19, 2013.
  
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/1jd/supctmanh/EF-Mandatory-Notice-5713.pdf

Third Department refuses to extend Labor Law 240 to object at ground level

In Oakes v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Bus. Trust 2012 NY Slip Op 05694, Decided on July 19, 2012, Appellate Division, Third Department, plaintiff sustained serious bodily injury when he was struck by a building truss at ground level.  Finding that plaintiff was exposed to the ordinary dangers of a construction site and not the extraordinary elevation risks, the appellate court refused to extend Labor Law section 240(1) to these facts.  Notwithstanding the substantial weight of the truss and the significant force generated as it fell due to the force of gravity, however, there was no elevation differential present here, let alone a "physically significant elevation differential" (Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d at 603). The truss and plaintiff were both at ground level, and they were either approximately the same height or plaintiff was slightly taller than the truss. Plaintiff's injury occurred after the truss was rendered unstable by an object that hit it horizontally — the bar joist, which shifted sideways on the forklift and pushed the truss into plaintiff (see Toefer v Long Is. R.R., 4 NY3d 399, 408 [2005], supra). Under these circumstances, plaintiff was exposed to "'the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and [not] the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1)'" (Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d at 339, quoting Rodriguez v Margaret Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 NY2d at 843; accord Toefer v Long Is. R.R., 4 NY3d at 407; see Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d at 269-270; Melo v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 92 NY2d at 911; Davis v Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 86 AD3d at 908-910; Mueller v PSEG Power N.Y., Inc., 83 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2011]; cf. Kropp v Town of Shandaken, 91 AD3d 1087, 1089-1090 [2012]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Court Refuses to Extend Holding in Runner

Since the Court of Appeals decided Runner v. New York Stock Exchange in June 2009, plaintiffs have been seeking to expand the application of the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) to facts and circumstances which involve any injury arising from the forces of gravity.      

New York Labor Law § 240(1) provides in pertinent part as follows:

Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees.

All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.  McKinney's Labor Law § 240

In addition to falls from a height, Labor Law § 240(1) protects workers who are injured from certain types of falling objects. The types of falling object cases include objects being hoisted or lowered, as well as objects which need to be secured. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Associates, 96 NY2d 259 (2001); Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. 81 NY2d 494, 505, 601 NYS2d 49, 618 NE2d 82. However, the extraordinary protections are not unlimited and should be strictly construed because they are in derogation with common-law. Accordingly, not every falling object invokes § 240, but only those which were sufficiently elevated.

In DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC, et al. 2010 NY Slip Op 20380 (Supreme, Kings County, 2010), (Saitta, J.), plaintiff allegedly sustained bodily injury when a steel I-beam fell on his leg. Plaintiff and his co-workers were allegedly moving wood beams by sliding them across steel I-beams which were staked on the floor. The aforesstated process caused one of the I-beams to become dislodged and fall onto plaintiff’s leg.  DeGabriel sought to invoke 240 in reliance upon the ratio deciendi of the Court of Appeals in the regard that the purported relevant inquiry is whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object.

Justice Wayne Saitta of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rejected plaintiff's argument, dismissed the § 240(1) cause of action and denied plaintiff’s motions for renewal and reargument. Judge Saitta held that the object which injured the plaintiff was not being lowered or hoisted, nor was it being moved at the time of the accident. It was a stationary object, allegedly in a stack, on the floor. Since the beam was not being hoisted or lowered, it comes within the line of cases governing when failure to secure an object which later falls constitutes a violation of §240(1). This turns on whether the beam was sufficiently elevated in relation to plaintiff that it constituted a hazard and therefore should have been secured. This Court held in its original decision that since the beam was not located above the plaintiff it was not sufficiently elevated that the failure to secure it violated §240(1). Citing, Schreiner v.Cremose Cheese Corp., supra, 202 AD2d 657, 609 NYS2d 322 (2nd Dept 1994); Lucas v Fulton Realty Partners, LLC, 60 AD3d 1004, 876 NYS2d 480 (2nd Dept 2009); Cruz v Neil Hospitality, LLC, 50 AD3d 619, 855 NYS2d 219 (2nd Dept 2008).



Attorney Registration Fee Increase

I haven't abandoned this blog, but I had to take a sabbatical because of an intensely busy work schedule over the last several months.  At this point I don't have enough time to devote to a review of recent court decisions that I believe to be of interest, but I wanted to share a development that all attorneys must address.  Toward that end, take note that section 468-a(4) of the Judiciary Law was amended to increase the Attorney Biennial Registration Fee to $375.00 as of September 1, 2010.  The New York State Office of Court Administration will implement the amended law to apply to all attorney registrations due on or after the aforestated date.