From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Breeden v. Sunset Industrial Park Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 19, 2000
275 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued May 25, 2000.

September 19, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), entered June 7, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Sunset Industrial Park Associates, James McKeon, and Alfonso Figliolia, and the defendant ADT Security Services, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment.

Perry Schwarz, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David M. Schwarz of counsel), for appellants.

Galvano Xanthakis, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Anthony Xanthakis of counsel), for respondents Sunset Industrial Park Associates, James McKeon, and Alfonso Figliolia.

Kelley Drye and Warren, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eric Steinberg of counsel), for respondent ADT Security Services, Inc.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff John Breeden, a telephone repairman, was injured when he fell from a ladder while investigating a nonworking telephone line. The work performed by the injured plaintiff at the time of the accident was routine maintenance of a nonworking telephone line and did not constitute "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building" within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) so as to bring him within the protective ambit of the statute (see, Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457; Pound v. A.V.R. Realty Corp., 271 A.D.2d 424).

The injured plaintiff was not covered by Labor Law § 241(6), also because no construction, excavation, or demolition work was being performed (see, Rogola v. Van Bourgondien, 263 A.D.2d 535; Luthi v. Long Is. Resource Corp., 251 A.D.2d 554).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Breeden v. Sunset Industrial Park Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 19, 2000
275 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Breeden v. Sunset Industrial Park Associates

Case Details

Full title:JOHN BREEDEN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. SUNSET INDUSTRIAL PARK ASSOCIATES…

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

Date published: Sep 19, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
713 N.Y.S.2d 210

Citing Cases

Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Assoc

In addition, as the motion court stated, section 228 was enacted to assure that tenants have access to cable…

Short v. Durez Division-Hooker Chemicals

Because there are questions of fact whether there was a surrender of complete control, summary judgment was…