From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Melendez v. Abanno Building Maintenance, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 7, 2005
17 A.D.3d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5826.

April 7, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered on or about November 1, 2004, which denied defendants' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and plaintiffs' cross motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs' cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Friedman, Friedman, Chiaravalloti Giannini, New York (A. Joseph Giannini of counsel), for appellants.

White and Williams LLP, New York (Michael J. Kozoriz of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.


Plaintiffs' cross motion was opposed and denied upon the singular ground that there was a question of fact as to whether plaintiff at the time of his accident was acting in a capacity entitling him to the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1). Our review of the record, however, discloses that defendants essentially admitted in their answer that on the occasion in question plaintiff was in fact performing an inspection integral to the progress of an ongoing construction project ( see Campisi v. Epos Contr. Corp., 299 AD2d 4; Aubrecht v. Acme Elec. Corp., 262 AD2d 994).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Melendez v. Abanno Building Maintenance, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 7, 2005
17 A.D.3d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Melendez v. Abanno Building Maintenance, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD MELENDEZ et al., Appellants, v. ABANNO BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.…

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

Date published: Apr 7, 2005

Citations

17 A.D.3d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
791 N.Y.S.2d 831

Citing Cases

MATZ v. LABORATORY INST. OF MERCHANDISING

"The intent of the statute was to protect workers employed in the enumerated acts, even while performing…

Rodriguez v. Toys R US-Del., Inc.

the time of the accident, "plaintiff was fixing a lamp that was no longer performing correctly [and that] my…