From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mount v. Gamble Machine, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 16, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to grant the cross motion for summary judgment of Gamble Distributors, Inc., incorrectly sued as Gamble Machine, Inc. (Gamble). As the owner of the premises, Gamble is only vicariously liable to an injured worker under Labor Law § 240 (see, Pietsch v. Moog, Inc., 156 A.D.2d 1019, 1020). Gamble submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form that it did not exercise any control or supervision over plaintiff and the work project. Under those circumstances, Gamble is entitled to a conditional judgment of indemnification against Creg Systems Corp. (see, Schultz v. Harrison Radiator Div., 209 A.D.2d 956 [decided herewith]; Stimson v. Lapp Insulator Co., 186 A.D.2d 1052; Pietsch v. Moog, Inc., supra).


Summaries of

Mount v. Gamble Machine, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Mount v. Gamble Machine, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES W. MOUNT, Plaintiff, v. GAMBLE MACHINE, INC., Defendant and…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 1017

Citing Cases

Golda v. National Fuel Gas Distr. Corp.

As a matter of law, Hutchinson did not supervise, direct, or control plaintiff or his work. Absent proof that…

Fuller v. NC3, Inc.

Maximus was the owner of record, had a pre-occupancy obligation to ensure that the air conditioner was in…