Rodriguez v. City of New York – Court of Appeals decision is adverse to defense counsel’s ability to defend comparative negligence cases; holds that plaintiffs may obtain summary judgment on liability without establishing the absence of their own negligence
By: Roy Anderson, Esq.
Associate, New York
Date: April 5, 2018
The Court of Appeals dealt a significant blow to defense counsel in a recent decision, Carlos Rodriguez v. City of New York (2018), by holding that plaintiffs do not
In Rodriguez, the plaintiff was employed by the City of New York as a garage utility worker. He was injured while working in a garage “outfitting” sanitation trucks with tire chains and plows. An out-of-control sanitation truck skidded on ice and crashed into a car in the garage which then pinned the plaintiff up against a rack of tires. He sustained bodily injuries which necessitated a spinal fusion surgery and rendered him permanently disabled from working.
After discovery, plaintiff and the City of New York moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Plaintiff’s motion argued that even if there was an issue of fact with respect to his comparative fault, he was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of Defendant’s liability. The Supreme Court denied both motions and held that there were triable issues of fact regarding foreseeability, causation, and plaintiff’s comparative negligence. The First Department relied on Thoma and affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s motion because he failed to make a prima facie showing that he was free of comparative negligence. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that placing the burden on the plaintiff to show an absence of comparative fault is inconsistent with New York’s system of pure comparative negligence, which was adopted in 1975 and is codified in Article 14-A, Sections 1411 and 1412 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”). The Court explained that in a pure comparative negligence state, such as New York, courts are directed to consider a plaintiff’s comparative fault only when considering damages; therefore, the Rodriguez decision gives effect to the plain language and legislative intent of Sections 1411 and 1412.
Section 1411 provides, in relevant part, that in an action for personal injuries a plaintiff’s culpable conduct “shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” Section 1412 further provides that “[c]ulpable conduct claimed in diminution of damages, in accordance with [CPLR 1411], shall be an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the party asserting the defense.”
The Rodriguez opinion explains that the legislature’s intent in enacting Sections 1411 and 1412 was “to bring New York law into conformity with the majority rule” which is that “a plaintiff’s comparative negligence is not a complete defense to be pleaded and proven by the plaintiff, but rather is only relevant to the mitigation of plaintiff’s damages and should be pleaded and proven by the defendant.” Thus, the Court of Appeals held that “[p]lacing the burden on the plaintiff to show an absence of comparative fault is inconsistent with the language of CPLR 1412.” The Court also rejected the City of New York’s argument that comparative fault should be considered a defense because “it is not a defense to any element (breach, duty, causation) of plaintiff’s prima facie cause of action for negligence.”
Significantly, Rodriguez purports to distinguish – without explicitly overruling – Thoma, because in that case the First Department did not address the significance of Article 14-A and the plaintiff effectively conceded that if she failed to establish the absence of a material fact as to her negligence then summary judgment on the issue of liability would be denied. Conversely, the Rodriguez plaintiff explicitly argued that he was entitled to summary judgment, even if there was an issue of fact regarding his comparative fault.
The Rodriguez dissent rejects the majority’s reasoning and argues that the rule in New York is and should remain “that a plaintiff must demonstrate the absence of issues of fact concerning both defendant’s negligence and its own comparative fault in order to obtain summary judgment.” The dissent further rejects that the Court was not overruling Thoma because “[s]ince Thoma, each Department has held that a plaintiff is precluded from obtaining summary judgment where issues of fact exist concerning comparative fault.” The dissent also calls attention to the inequity of assessing a percentage of plaintiff’s culpability distinct from the defendant’s and noted that “[d]eterminations of degrees of fault should be made as a whole, and assessing one party’s fault with a preconceived idea of the other party’s liability is inherently unfair.”
It is not hard to imagine the injurious effect that Rodriguez will have on defendants when it comes time for juries to apportion liability. As articulated by the dissent, defendants will effectively be “entering the batter’s box with two strikes already called.”
Recent Publication by Associate Attorney Jacqueline Muttick
By: Gartner + Bloom, P.C.
Date: April 2, 2018
Associate Attorney Jacqueline Muttick was recently published in CLM Construction Magazine. Ms. Muttick examined a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that held that a construction defect action accrues not upon substantial completion of construction but instead when the building’s owner knows or should have known through reasonable diligence about the existence of an actionable claim. See the full publication here.
First Department finds factual issues in §241(6) exclusion, and holds that claim by a lessee’s contractor triggers the lessor’s indemnity
By: Michael E. Kar, Esq.
Associate, N.Y.
Date: December 27, 2017
Synopsis:
Factual issue found in Labor Law §241(6) analysis:
At the Supreme Court below, Plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §241(6) were dismissed. Section 241(6) imposes on property owners (and lessee’s under Article 10 of New York Labor Law) the duty to provide reasonable protection and safety for workers, and to comply with all Department of Labor regulations. The issue in application of §241(6) was, primarily, centered around the physical location at which the injury took place. The location was the 16th floor of the building in question. A portion of the 16th floor was XCEL’s in practice, an area where they would keep materials and tools used for renovations within the building. However, no personnel or office furniture existed in a permanent capacity, and XCEL had no lease and did not pay any rent for the space. XCEL maintains a separate permanent office and workshop in Queens.
In support of their motion for summary judgment as to the applicability of Labor Law §241(6), Defendant Cayre asserted that the 16th floor is a permanent workshop where “for the past 10 years, the… plaintiff reported to work each day….” Their argument concludes that due to these facts the 16th floor is not the statutorily protected “area[] in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed….” N.Y. Labor Law §241(6).
In granting Cayre’s motion for summary judgment below, the Supreme Court found that the 16th floor of the building “was a permanent workshop controlled by XCEL, not a temporary staging area ancillary to the Project and controlled by Cayre.” By extension, this also released Broadway under §241(6).
The First Department reversed and remanded for the court below, finding that “there are disputed issues of fact concerning whether the 16th floor space qualifies as a construction area.” In remanding, the Appellate Division cited such cases as Gerrish v. 56 Leonard, 147 A.D.3 511 (1st Dept. 2017) (factors for determining applicability of 241(6) are physical proximity, common ownership, and operation of off-site premises) and Gonnerman v. Huddleston, 78 A.D.3d 993 (2d Dept. 2010) (241(6) extends to areas where materials are being readied for use, contrary to areas where materials are merely stored for future use).
New Year, New Contract Drafting and Due Diligence Concerns for Partnerships
By: Michael E. Kar
Associate, New York
Date: December 27, 2017
Entities that are taxed as partnerships enter 2018 with fresh concerns in relation to due diligence and contract drafting, in reaction to changes in the statutory regime impacting audit procedures for taxable years starting after December 31, 2017.
By way of background, in the early 1980s a series of statutes, consolidated as the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), changed the way partnerships were audited by the IRS. Where previously each partner was individually audited and then collected from, TEFRA supposedly streamlined the process by auditing the partnership as a whole, and then applying the results to each individual partner, taking into account his or her specific tax attributes. This meant that these adjustments were based in part on each individual partner’s taxable rate. Now, however, new rules will alter that statutory regime, regulations that follow the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. The rules of the BBA are effective for partnership returns for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.
TEFRA was deemed in need of improvement for a collection of reasons. One such reason was who exactly the IRS would deal with in regard to the partnership. There was difficulty in ascertaining who the single ‘tax matters’ partner was. Sometimes, this was an unofficial coalition of partners who would deal with the IRS, creating conflicting information and procedural confusion. Along with a series of other inefficiencies, it was determined that TEFRA resulted in fewer tax-eligible partnerships being audited.
Following the new rules at hand, the most immediate consideration imposed upon partnerships is the necessary designation of a “tax partnership representative”. This is a designated individual (or entity) with whom the IRS interacts. Unlike the ‘tax matters partner’, the tax partnership representative does not have to be a member of the partnership; the only statutory requisite is a substantial presence in the United States.
Although requisites are minimal, this tax partnership representative is given substantial power in regard to potential audits. This representative of a partnership has the sole authority to act on behalf of the partnership with respect to auditing, including any settlement, and can make certain unilateral Internal Revenue Code elections. All partners are bound by this representative’s decisions as well as any final IRS determination relating to the pertinent audit. Drafting tip: a partnership representative should be chosen before 2018 because if there is no designation, the IRS will make the selection. In addition to the benefit of autonomy of choice due to this increased power, partnerships should select their own representative because IRS consent is needed to revoke any IRS-made designation.
The second and far more substantial consideration is that the new rules allow the IRS to collect directly from the partnership, not just from the individual partners therein. This has been termed the “imputed underpayment”, and this adjustment is applied to the year in which the audit was centered, the “review year.”
In terms of tax rates, in contrast to TEFRA and the prior statutory regime which utilized the tax attributes of individual partners, the new rules would apply one rate to the entire partnership. It is important to note that this rate would not be based on the traditional aggregate method of determining tax on partnerships.
For this reason, among other potential considerations, partnerships may wish to avoid these changes. For qualifying partnerships, there are two options available.
The first option is an opt out, exercisable each year by partnerships that furnish less than 100 required (not possible) K-1s. Partnerships can qualify to opt out, generally, as long as there are no owners that are: trusts; tax-disregarded entities; or other partnerships not meeting certain requirements. These qualifications may and should factor into the acquisition and disposition decisions of a partnership, both today and in the future.
The second option, a sort of retroactive opt-out, is the election of a “push out.” If an audit tries to collect based on a previous review year, the partnership can push out the tax responsibility to the partners in that reviewed year, removing the tax responsibility of the partnership as a whole. Drafting tip: in consideration of possible adjustments that may be made under these rules, partnerships may want to impose an obligation on the partnership to push out in the event of an imputed underpayment.
Pushing out requires (i) a timely election within 45 days of IRS notice of final audit adjustment, and (ii) that the partnership provides to each partner during that reviewed year their share of the adjustment. The latter share adjustment must also be sent to the IRS. If executed properly, each notified partner is thereafter responsible for payment. Drafting tip: a partnership may want to secure these obligations contractually with owners, either during the relationship or during the sale or transfer of that owner’s interest. This drafting consideration works both ways. Alternatively, owners who are releasing their interest may seek contractual indemnity for any future audits being done under these new rules, particularly for possible review years in which that owner held interest.
Although this article addresses just a portion of the changes under the new rules, two obvious changes are needed moving forward for most impacted partnerships. First, existing tax distribution provisions should be reviewed in light of these developments, even if a partnership plans on systematic opting or pushing out. Second, new agreements to acquire or transfer interest should consider these rules and inject potential indemnities, preceded by new due diligence as to the partnership’s previous tax and ownership circumstances.
These changes to the statutory regime may and should result in global considerations for acquisition and disposition of partnership interests, as well as a multitude of amendments to operating agreements, partnership agreements, contracts, and other instruments. Some of these changes, especially the designation of a tax partnership representative, demand immediate attention.
NOTE: This is not tax advice.
G + B Participates in the 2017 New York Cares Winter Wishes Program
By: Gartner + Bloom, P.C.
Date: December 11, 2017
Under the leadership of Alex Fisher, g + b was proud this year to participate in the New York Cares Winter Wishes program. The program collects children’s letters to Santa and sends them to volunteers who play Santa and buy, wrap and deliver the gifts before Christmas. Our attorneys and staff provided gifts for twenty-five boys and girls in the New York City area ranging in age from 5 to 11.
For background on the project, visit https://www.newyorkcares.org/winter-wishes/about.
Outside the Coverage Period but Still Covered: New Jersey’s Warning to Insurers in Construction Defect Matters
By: Jacqueline A. Muttick, Esq. & Marc Shortino, Esq.
Associate, New Jersey Partner, New Jersey
Date: October 19, 2017
On October 10, 2017, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed the “continuous-trigger” theory of insurance coverage in Air Master & Cooling, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, __ N.J. Super. __, Docket No. A-5415-15T3 (App. Div. Oct. 10, 2017). The Court found that the continuous trigger theory of insurance coverage applies “to third-party liability claims involving progressive damage to property caused by an insured’s allegedly defective construction work” and that the “last pull” of the trigger for ascertaining the end of a covered occurrence “happens when the essential nature and scope of the property damage first becomes known, or when one would have sufficient reason to know of it.” Id. (slip op. at 3).
Selective moved for summary judgment, arguing its policy did not cover water damage that materialized or manifested before the policy coverage began in June 2009. Air Master opposed that motion, arguing that the continuous-trigger theory of coverage applied and that coverage continued until the “last pull” of the trigger of injury occurs. Air Master also argued that manifestation occurs when it is known, or reasonably knowable, that damage is attributable to the work of the insured, which occurred in May 2010 with the issuing of the expert report. The trial judge granted summary judgment, ultimately finding that while the continuous-trigger theory of coverage applied, the damage manifested prior to the start of Selective’s policy period. Air Master appealed that determination.[1]
On appeal, the Appellate Division also found that the continuous-trigger doctrine applies to claims for third-party, progressive property damage in construction defect litigation. “[T]he continuous-trigger theory recognizes that, because certain harms … will progressively develop over time, ‘the date of the occurrence should be the continuous period from exposure to manifestation.’” Id. (slip op. at 12) (quoting Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Insurance Co., 138 N.J. 437, 454-56 (1994)) (applying the continuous-trigger theory in the context of property damage claims arising from the installation of asbestos-related products). “Under such a continuous-trigger approach, ‘all the insurers over that period [are] liable for the continuous development’” of the damage. Id. (quoting Owens-Illinois, Inc., 138 N.J. at 450-51). “[T]he continuous-trigger approach requires multiple successive insurers up to the point of manifestation to cover a loss,” which the Court noted provides more coverage for claims and encourages insurers to monitor developing risks. Id. (slip op. at 13) (citing Owens-Illinois, Inc., 138 N.J. at 458-59). The Appellate Division stated that the doctrine was not unfair to insurers, but instead required them to bear a portion of the coverage burden that accumulated while the property harm had not yet manifested, as occurs in construction defect litigation where defects are not immediately obvious. Id. (slip op. at 17) (citing The Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association, Inc. v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, __ N.J. __, Docket No. A-101/102/103/104-15 (2017) (slip op. at 34)).