From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Wind-Sun Constr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 11, 2010
70 A.D.3d 1383 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. CA 09-01001.

February 11, 2010.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered May 6, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

LOTEMPIO BROWN, P.C., BUFFALO (PATRICK J. BROWN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (PAUL McCORMICK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Present: Smith, J.P., Carni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. `

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Kenneth Davis (plaintiff) while he was attempting to move the fabricated steel components of a pedestrian bridge into his employer's facility on Akron Road in Lockport. Defendant was the general contractor on the project to construct the pedestrian bridge at Lyndon Road in Fairport, and entered into a subcontract with plaintiffs employer to fabricate the steel bridge components.

Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. That statute applies to "construction, excavation and demolition work," and plaintiff was not engaged in such work when he was injured ( id.). Indeed, plaintiffs accident did not occur at the construction site but, rather, it occurred while he was engaged in the fabrication of steel bridge components at his employer's facility. Thus, he was not engaged in an activity protected under Labor Law § 241 (6) ( see Solly v Tam Ceramics, 258 AD2d 914; Safe v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 258 AD2d 933, lv denied 93 NY2d 818). Furthermore, plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) at the time of the accident, and thus the court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for the violation of that statute ( see generally Solly, 258 AD2d 914).


Summaries of

Davis v. Wind-Sun Constr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 11, 2010
70 A.D.3d 1383 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Davis v. Wind-Sun Constr

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. WIND-SUN CONSTRUCTION, INC.…

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

Date published: Feb 11, 2010

Citations

70 A.D.3d 1383 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1173
894 N.Y.S.2d 621

Citing Cases

Preston v. APCH, Inc.

, 21 N.Y.3d at 566, 976 N.Y.S.2d 421, 998 N.E.2d 1045 ). "[T]he purpose of the statute is to place ‘ultimate…

Archer-Vail v. LHV Precast Inc.

40(1) and 241(6), plaintiff alleged that, at the time that decedent sustained the fatal injuries, he had been…