From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 31, 1999
259 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 31, 1999

Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion to renew although plaintiff's offered no explanation for their failure to submit certain documents at the time of the original motions and cross motion ( see, Lesanti v. Harmac. Indus., 175 A.D.2d 664). Upon renewal, the court properly concluded that a factual issue exists whether plaintiff Joseph Gonzalez, who was dismantling air conditioning ductwork in the computer room of a bank, was engaged in demolition work, as that term is defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(16) ( cf., Casale v. Washington Mills Electro Mm. Corp., 216 A.D.2d 881, 882). Plaintiff's allege that defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (e), which is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6) ( see generally, Jackson v. Williamsville Cent. School Dist., 229 A.D.2d 985, 986). Consequently, those portions of the motions and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6) cause of action were properly denied upon renewal.

Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 31, 1999
259 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH GONZALEZ et al., Respondents, v. MARINE MIDLAND BANK, INC., Doing…

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

Date published: Mar 31, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 881

Citing Cases

Sponholz v. Benderson Property Development

Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law…

Pomichowski v. Greenwich Street Project, LLC

Plaintiff asserts that 12 NYCRR 23-3.2(b) and 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3)(4)(5)(6), (c), (f) were violated because…