From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Ekleco, Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-00397

Argued March 21, 2003.

April 21, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated November 30, 2001, which, upon the granting of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Sacks and Sacks, New York, N.Y. (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellants.

Cerussi Spring, White Plains, N.Y. (Richard D. Bentzen of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action by submitting evidence that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition which caused the injured plaintiff's accident, nor did they control or supervise the injured plaintiff's work (see Mancini v. Pedra Constr., 293 A.D.2d 453; Rosemin v. Oved, 254 A.D.2d 343). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Labor Law § 241(6) "imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers" (Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 878). Further, a plaintiff must set forth the specific provisions of the State Industrial Code which were allegedly violated to premise liability upon Labor Law § 241(6) (see Rizzuto v. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action by demonstrating that the specific sections of the State Industrial Code that the plaintiffs relied upon are inapplicable to the facts of this case (see Alvia v. Teman Elec. Contr., 287 A.D.2d 421, 422-423; Rose v. A. Servidone, Inc., 268 A.D.2d 516, 517-518), and in opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Walker v. Ekleco, Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Walker v. Ekleco, Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN WALKER, ET AL., Appellants, v. EKLECO, CO., ET AL., Respondents (and…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 764

Citing Cases

Greenfield v. 77 Water Street, Inc.

Since plaintiff cannot amend his bill of particulars as of course, the court will determine the cross motion…

Greenfield v. 77 Water St. Inc.

The note of issue in this matter was filed March 18, 2003. Plaintiff's cross motion is dated September 19,…