From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ceballos v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 7, 1998
249 A.D.2d 40 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

affirming the entry of summary judgment dismissing Labor Law claims where "none of defendants hired, or even knew of the retention of, the . . . contractor in whose employment plaintiff was at the time of the accident giving rise to the within action"

Summary of this case from Kerrigan v. N.Y. State Elec.

Opinion

April 7, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).


To recover from defendants in their capacity as owners pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240 or 241, it would, under the circumstances of this case, have been necessary for plaintiff to establish that he had been employed by defendants or their agent (see, Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., 211 A.D.2d 441, 442, affd 87 N.Y.2d 938). It is clear, however, that none of defendants hired, or even knew of the retention of, the cable television contractor in whose employment plaintiff was at the time of the accident giving rise to the within action and, accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law causes of action was properly granted (see, Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., supra; Aviles v. Crystal Mgt., 233 A.D.2d 129; Marchese v. Grossarth, 232 A.D.2d 924, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 809).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Ceballos v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 7, 1998
249 A.D.2d 40 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

affirming the entry of summary judgment dismissing Labor Law claims where "none of defendants hired, or even knew of the retention of, the . . . contractor in whose employment plaintiff was at the time of the accident giving rise to the within action"

Summary of this case from Kerrigan v. N.Y. State Elec.
Case details for

Ceballos v. Kaufman

Case Details

Full title:FRANCISCO CEBALLOS, Appellant, v. GEORGE KAUFMAN et al., Respondents and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 7, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 40 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 229

Citing Cases

Sarigul v. New York Telephone Co.

The Fourth Department determined that the defendant was not the "owner" of the cable line being repaired and…

Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Assoc

Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ. It is a matter of precedent in this…