From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marino v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1999
259 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 1, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"It is well settled that one who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts because the employer has no right to control the manner in which the work is to be done" ( Mercado v. Slope Assocs., 246 A.D.2d 581; see, Dente v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 252 A.D.2d 534). Here, American Airlines, Inc., submitted sufficient evidence to establish, as a matter of law, that Combined Contract Services, Inc., which provided the personnel for curbside check in, was an independent contractor, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact on this issue.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, CPLR 3212 (f) does not countenance the postponement of summary disposition where, as here, in opposing the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff merely speculates that discovery might uncover that the injuries sued upon resulted from the defendants' negligence ( see, Agoglia v. Sterling Foster Co., 237 A.D.2d 549).

O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marino v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1999
259 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Marino v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ROSE C. MARINO, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 77

Citing Cases

Vidal v. Tsitsiashvili

Furthermore, the parties opposing the motion failed to show that facts essential to justify opposition may…

Tuls v. N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co.

The basis of a claim for outstanding discovery is that plaintiff has shown a "good faith factual basis,"…