From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mocarska v. 200 Madison Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1999
262 A.D.2d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 17, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.).


Plaintiff's complaint against defendant-respondent Alexander Wolf Son alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 Lab., 240 Lab. and 241 Lab. was properly dismissed since Alexander Wolf was neither the general contractor of the work in the performance of which plaintiff was injured, nor the agent of the owners who had entered into the contract with plaintiff's employer ( see, D'Amico v. New York Racing Assn., 203 A.D.2d 509). While Alexander Wolf performed renovation work upon the premises where plaintiff allegedly sustained her injury, Alexander Wolf's work was wholly separate from that of plaintiff's employer, defendant NSC Abatement, an asbestos removal contractor, and, accordingly, governed by contracts distinct from the contract between NSC and the owner's managing agent, defendant George Comfort Sons.

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.


Summaries of

Mocarska v. 200 Madison Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1999
262 A.D.2d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Mocarska v. 200 Madison Associates

Case Details

Full title:STANISLAWA MOCARSKA, Respondent, v. 200 MADISON ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 17, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 58

Citing Cases

Widziszewski v. Kreisler, Borg, Florman Corp.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The defendant…

MESTA v. FEDERAL REALTY LTD. PARTNERSHIP

1, there must be a showing that the subcontractor had the authority to supervise and control the work giving…