From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Engels v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 2004
7 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-02375, 2003-03756.

Decided May 17, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered February 5, 2003, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant City of New York and the separate motion of the defendants Colton Condominium, MPJ Realty, Inc., and Leonard Jacobs, which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against them, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered March 13, 2003, as, upon the order, dismissed those causes of action insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Steve Marchelos, P.C. (Oshman Mirisola, LLP, New York, N.Y. [David L. Kremen] of counsel), for appellant.

Zawacki, Everett, Gray McLaughlin, New York, N.Y. (Mark A. Everett of counsel), for respondent City of New York.

Polin, Prisco Villafane, Glen Cove, N.Y. (Andrew D. Polin of counsel), for respondents Colton Condominium, MPJ Realty, Inc., and Leonard Jacobs.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The causes of action based on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) were properly dismissed insofar as asserted against the respondents since the plaintiff was not involved in the construction or alteration of a structure or building at the time of her fall ( see Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457; Rogala v. Van Bourgondien, 263 A.D.2d 535, 536-537; Luthi v. Long Is. Resource Corp., 251 A.D.2d 554; Tanzer v. Terzi Prods., 244 A.D.2d 224).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Engels v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 2004
7 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Engels v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:HULDA ENGELS, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., respondents, ET AL.…

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

Date published: May 17, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
776 N.Y.S.2d 837

Citing Cases

Canfield v. Forman Jay LLC

As plaintiff's coworker summarized the process, “the carpenters build (the set), the scenics paint it, the…