Property Manager

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

On October 8, 2005, an elderly woman got off of the elevator in her apartment building and walked toward the mailroom to collect her mail from her mailbox. It was a day of heavy rain and the doorman had been mopping the area to try to keep standing water out of the lobby just two minutes prior to the woman getting off of the elevator. A New York Injury Lawyer said the woman slipped on the wet floor exactly two minutes after the doorman had mopped it. She sustained severe injuries and had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. She filed a lawsuit against the condominium owners and the management company.

In New York, if a person has a slip and fall accident, they must prove certain elements existed in order to recover any damages. The person who fell must show that the owner of the property or the management company that maintains the property created the hazardous condition that caused the fall (slip and fall). They must show that the conditions existed and that the owner or manager was aware of the existence of the hazard and did not take steps to correct the problem. Alternatively, they may show that the problem existed for such a long time that the owner or manager should have known of the existence of the problem, but still did not take steps to correct the problem or warn the public of the problem.

The woman maintained in her action that the doorman saw her exit the elevator, he could have warned her that the floor was wet, but he did not. There were no signs that warned people walking through the lobby that the floor was wet. The floor was marble and known to become very slick when it was wet. The owners and the property manager should have known that on rainy days, the marble floor would become slippery because of water being tracked in on peopleas shoes. They could have taken steps by placing mats through the lobby to prevent people from falling on the hard surface.

The owner of the building stated that he did not hold any liability because it is the responsibility of the management company to supervise the conditions of the building and to maintain it in a safe condition. The owner of the property requested that the court provide him with a summary judgment releasing him from liability in this situation. A Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said the management company stated that they were doing everything in their power to maintain the building in a safe condition by having the doorman mop the lobby as he noticed puddles of water on the floor. The management company further argued that the woman herself tracked the water onto the floor when she got off of the elevator. They maintain that because it was a rainy day, the mat in front of the elevator had become saturated with water. When the woman got off of the elevator and walked over the mat, she tracked water onto the floor. The woman slipped on that water.

The court reviewed the arguments on both sides. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said they determined that the property management company by contract relieved the property owner of responsibility for the condition of the property. The request of the property owner for summary judgment releasing them from liability was approved. However, the property management companyas request for summary judgment relieving them of liability based on their theory that the woman had tracked water from the mat was not accepted. The court determined that there was enough of a triable issue of fact in the case for the case to go forward to trial. In a case like this one, where surveillance cameras captured the entire event as well as what happened with the doorman mopping the floor just two minutes prior to the accident there is less that is left to dispute. It was obvious that the doorman mopped that area and that there was not enough time for the floor to have dried before the woman walked on it. There were no wet floor warning signs and no one warned her that the floor was wet.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, New York slip and fall attorneys can help you determine what you need to do to clarify your claims. We are located in convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. A New York personal injury lawyer can review your case and guide you to make the best decisions for you and your family.

A general contractor was hired by a tenant of a building in Manhattan. The project was to install duct work into the intake air duct down in a shaft below street level in front of the building. A New York Injury Lawyer said the general contractor hired an air conditioning contractor to install the duct work at the job site. The air conditioning contractor subcontracted out its work to the metal sheet contractor.

The complainant was employed by the metal sheet contractor as a journeyman sheet metal worker, whose responsibilities were to hang and install duct work through the supervision of the complainantas foreman. On November 9, 2004, the complainant and his foreman went to the building in order to install a large piece of prefabricated duct work, known as gooseneck duct, below street level. According to the complainant, the gooseneck duct was the size of a car and was approximately six feet long, six feet wide, and five feet tall, and weighed between 110 and 125 pounds. The site where the gooseneck duct was to be placed was located below a series of about 40 metal grates that were in place on the ground. Each grate measure approximately two feet by four feet, and this grating covered an area of the ground measuring approximately 12 feet by 8 feet. The vault below the grating was approximately 15 feet deep.

In order to install the gooseneck duct below ground, the grating on the street level needed to be opened. The gooseneck duct was to be lowered through an opening in the grates in order to be installed below them.

Upon the complainantas arrival together with his foreman at the job site, they met with a representative from the general contractor, The general contractor representative who showed them where the gooseneck duct was going to be installed in the area below the grates and told them to wait for the representatives of the buildings to see how they would go about installing it. A mechanic and an engineer, who were employees of the building met with the complainant and the foreman. The two building employees then told the complainant and his foreman that the gooseneck duct was going to be lowered though the grating, and asked the foreman which grate was to be opened. The foreman told the building employees which grate to open and the complainant and his foreman went back to their truck to unload the gooseneck duct. As the complainant and his foreman were unloading the gooseneck duct off the truck, the mechanic removed the grate by unbolting four clips that held the grate down, lifting the grate up, and leaning it back against the building. However, the mechanic did not open the grate that the foreman had requested him to open. Instead, the mechanic opened the grate in the far corner, creating an unprotected two feet by four feet holes.

In order to maneuver the gooseneck duct to the grating area, the complainant and his foreman had to take the gooseneck duct around a rectangular billboard sign, which was attached to posts that were bolted to the ground over the grates. They transported the gooseneck duct to the area of the billboard on a dolly, and, when they arrived at the billboard area, they removed the gooseneck duct from the dolly, and attempted to drag the gooseneck duct behind the billboard on the left side in the space between the billboard and the building. While the gooseneck duct was on the sidewalk over the grates and the complainant was attempting to pull it into position, he let go of the gooseneck duct and fell backwards down approximately 15 feet into the hole created by the open grate.

Consequently, the complainant filed the action against the property manager and the general contractor, seeking to recover damages for the personal injuries sustained by him due to his slip and fall. The complaint alleges claims of common-law negligence, and violations of Labor Laws. The general contractor and the property manager both interposed their answers and the property manager asserted cross claims against the general contractor. The general contractor filed a third-party action against the metal sheet contractor. The metal sheet contractor answered the third-party complaint and the general contractor filed a second third party complaint against the air conditioning contractor. The air conditioning contractor interposed its answer and served cross claims against the metal sheet contractor. The general contractor sought to voluntarily discontinue its second third-party action against the air conditioning contractor, but none of the parties, other than the general contractor and the air conditioning contractor agreed to sign and execute the stipulation of discontinuance. The complainant filed his note of issue upon the completion of discovery.

The complainant argues that he is entitled to summary judgment in his favor on his Labor Law claim. The Labor Law imposes liability upon owners and contractors and their agents who fail to provide or erect safety devices necessary to give reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers engaged in construction work who are exposed to elevation-related hazards. The legislative purpose behind the enactment is to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor, instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect them from an accident. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said it is well settled that Labor Law is to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was framed.

In opposition to the complainantas motion for summary judgment and in support of its motion insofar as it seeks summary judgment dismissing the complainantas Labor Law claim, the property manager contends that the Labor Law is inapplicable to it because it was not the owner of the premises, a general contractor, or the agent of the owner or general contractor. However, a Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said while the property manager was not the owner of the premises or a general contractor, a party can be deemed a statutory agent under the Labor Law and may be held vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner for injuries sustained pursuant to Labor Law where it had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury.
.
When the work giving rise to the duty to conform to the requirements of Labor Law has been delegated to a third party, that third party then obtains the concomitant authority to supervise and control that work and becomes a statutory agent of the owner or general contractor. Indeed, it has been held that a property manager can be held liable under Labor Law as an agent of the owner.

The property manager argues that although it served as the property manager for the premises, it had no contractual relationship to the construction work which the complainant was performing. The property manager relies upon the fact that the general contractoras contract for the project was with the tenant. However, it is unnecessary for the property manager to have it actually contracted for the work in order for it to be held liable under Labor Law.

The property manager also relies upon their mechanicas deposition testimony that his supervisor, had told him to go up to the street level and open a piece of the grating for the tenant. Such deposition testimony, however, only supports the argument that the property manager was acting as an agent for the owner when its employee, the mechanic opened the grate for the complainant to install the gooseneck duct.

While the property manager argues that it did not supervise or control the complainantas work, their employees, the mechanic and the engineer, were present at the work site. The property manager contends that the removal of the grate by their mechanic did not constitute supervision or control over the complainantas work since it was the foreman who directed their mechanic to remove a particular grating. The foremanas direction as to which grate to open, however, did not negate any independent duties which the property manager may have had under the Labor Law, or prevent them from assuming those duties and thereby becoming vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner.

With respect to the supervision and control of the property manager over the complainantas work, the foreman testified, at his deposition, that a representative from the general contractor told them that they had to wait for somebody from the building to come and see how they were going to get the gooseneck duct into the building. The foreman further testified, at his deposition, that the people from the building then told them that they should bring the gooseneck duct down through the grating. Although according to the foreman, he told the people from the building which grate he wanted removed, the mechanic decided to open a different grate because he thought it would be the safest one, and neither the complainant nor the foreman was informed of it.

By opening the grating and thereby creating an open unprotected hole, the property manager, through its employees, exercised sufficient supervision and control over the complainantas work so as to render it liable under Labor Law as an agent of the owner. While vigorously disputing the liability of the property manager, which is acknowledged to be an incorrect accused and not the owner of the premises, the company has acknowledged that it served as the property manager for the subject premises. Thus, as the agent for the owner, they would be liable to the complainant under the Labor Law. Thus, the property manageras cross motion, insofar as it seeks dismissal of the complainantas Labor Law claim, must be denied.

In opposition to the complainantas motion for summary judgment in his favor, the property manager argues that the complainant is not entitled to summary judgment because there is a question of fact as to whether the complainant acts were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Specifically, the property manager contends that the complainant was aware of the necessity for a grate to be removed so that the job could be carried out, but did not pay attention to the work of the employees. The property manager asserts that the complainantas failure to pay attention is a sufficient ground to deny his motion for summary judgment.

The property manager’s argument is rejected. Where a violation of Labor Law is a proximate cause of an accident, the worker’s conduct cannot be deemed solely to blame for it. The law states that contributory negligence will not exonerate an accused who has violated the statute and proximately caused a complainantas injury.

The general contractor and the metal sheet contractor, in opposition to the complainantas motion, argue that Labor Law is inapplicable to the case because the complainant was not involved in any work related to an elevation differential, but was, instead, merely moving the gooseneck duct from one location on the ground to another and not attempting to lower it. The argument is rejected. Although the complainant was at ground level, the hole into which he fell was 15 feet deep, and, thus, there was an elevation differential. The purpose of the complainantas actions, moreover, was to move the duct from ground level to the lower level through an opening in the grate pursuant to instruction. Traversing the ground where there was a 15 foot deep hole constituted an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law.

The general contractor further argues that an opening created by the removal of a grate is akin to an opening created by the removal of a manhole cover. The Appellate Division in so holding, specifically noted that while Labor Law is applicable to work performed at heights or where the work itself involves risks related to differentials in elevation, the work in which the injured the complainant was involved in that case was wholly unrelated to an elevation-related hazard, the manhole in which he fell. Thus, the complainantas injury was not a direct consequence of the performance of his work.

Doing our job sometimes exposes us to danger. If you are harmed or injured while at work, you can seek the services of Brooklyn Slip and Fall Attorneys together with Brooklyn Accident Lawyers. If you are unable to work and earn a living due to injuries at work, you may consult a Brooklyn Workers Compensation Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Slip and fall cases have become synonymous with fakery in our society. Most of the time, this is not the case. A New York Injury Lawyer said real injuries that are painful and life changing can come as the result of a slip and fall anywhere. When it happens as the result of another personas negligence, it needs to be handled in a court of law. However, it is important that the person who was injured is able to explain what happened and why the incident was not just a simple accident. In order for the slip and fall to be heard in a court of law, the person who fell must be able to show that there was negligence involved concerning the property owner, manager, or their trustee. Without that ability, there is not a case.

One case that occurred in a New York building in Queens County on May 26, 2010, involved a man who fell going down the stairs in the building. He filed an action to recover damages for the personal injury that he sustained. However, when he testified under oath, he stated that he did not know what happened when he fell. He stated that one minute he was putting his foot down and the next that he was flying up into the air. He stated that he did not remember the fall and could not state if his foot hit the stair before he fell or not. All that he was able to recall was that he had been going down the stairs and then he tripped and fell (trip and fall).

They were able to show in court that the engineers report stated that there were unsafe conditions in the staircase where the accident occurred. However, the defendant did not connect these unsafe conditions to his accident. Because he failed to connect the unsafe conditions with any reason as to the cause of his accident, the court is unable to presume that the unsafe conditions were the cause of the accident. The law states that it is the complainantas responsibility to show the court that the accident was a result of negligence or treachery. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said that in this case, when the complainant gave his deposition to the court, he did not make that connection. Merely presenting a situation that might have been the cause is not enough to raise a triable issue of fact in a court of law.

The building owneras attorney specifically asked the complainant in the deposition if the fall was caused by the step being slippery or if the step was cracked and that may have caused the complainant to fall. The complainant stated that he did not know. That means that the fall could have occurred as the building owneras attorney suggests by the man simply misstepping. The fall could have been caused by a loss of balance. If these are the causes for the injury, then the building owner is not responsible. The fact that there are unsafe conditions present is not relevant unless it can be shown that these unsafe conditions contributed to the fall. A New York City Personal Injury Lawyer said if the man had testified that the step was cracked, and had given way beneath him, and the engineeras report stated that the step was in deed cracked, then there would have been a triable issue of fact. This did not prove to be the case in this accident where the man could not remember exactly what had caused him to fall.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its Personal Injury Lawyers, there are convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Do not suffer if you were injured because of the negligence of others. Our Personal Injury Attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. Any time that you are injured because of the negligence of others, it is important to obtain an attorneyas advice. You can help protect other people from becoming injured by the same or similar circumstances.

legalweek

Olswang, White & Case and Ashurst are among a raft of firms to have taken advisory roles related to the £62m rescue acquisition of property manager Peverel Group by a duo of private equity houses. The acquisition has seen Peverel – one of the UK’s largest property management companies – taken out of administration, securing 4,200 jobs and reducing the group’s debt from £125m to £25m.

legalweek

Olswang, White & Case and Ashurst are among a raft of firms to have taken advisory roles related to the £62m rescue acquisition of property manager Peverel Group by a duo of private equity houses. The acquisition has seen Peverel – one of the UK’s largest property management companies – taken out of administration, securing 4,200 jobs and reducing the group’s debt from £125m to £25m.

legalweek

Olswang and Taylor Wessing have lined up to advise on the £160m sale of St Katharine’s Docks in central London to Max Property Group and a South African family trust.Olswang advised real estate fund manager F&C REIT on its sale of St Katharine’s Estate, which extends over 22 acres and includes offices, housing, shops and restaurants in addition to the marina.

legalweek

Olswang, White & Case and Ashurst are among a raft of firms to have taken advisory roles related to the £62m rescue acquisition of property manager Peverel Group by a duo of private equity houses. The acquisition has seen Peverel – one of the UK’s largest property management companies – taken out of administration, securing 4,200 jobs and reducing the group’s debt from £125m to £25m.

HHS reached a settlement on March 12, 2012 with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (“BCBST”) for $1.5 million stemming from a 2009 data breach. This settlement represents the first under the HITECH Act. 

Pursuant to its obligations under the HITECH Act, BCBST notified the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) that 57 unencrypted hard drives had been stolen from a locked closet in a facility that BCBST was not occupying at the time. (BCBST was in the process of moving to a new facility.) The locked data closet was secured by biometric and keycard scan security with a magnetic lock and an additional door with a keyed lock. In addition, the property manager provided general facility security services. The drives included protected health information that belonged to approximately 1 million individuals. This ultimately prompted an OCR investigation that found that BCBST failed to implement appropriate administrative safeguards since it had not performed a required security evaluation in response to operational changes (i.e., its process of moving to a new location) and that it had failed to provide physical safeguards to adequately protect the information. 

Although the settlement with OCR was for $1.5 million, several reports stated that BCBST has spent more than $17 million over the two and a half year period responding to the data breach itself in relation to the investigation, notification and protection efforts. In addition, BCBST is required to implement a corrective action plan that includes random auditing of BCBST portable devices and electronic data storage devices including unannounced site visits to facilities housing portable devices.

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 3 seconds to load.