From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ertl v. Ciminelli-Cowper Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 9, 2001
288 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(1465) CA 01-01043.

November 9, 2001.

(Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fallon, J. — Summary Judgment.)

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied those parts of the motion of defendants Ciminelli-Cowper Co., Inc. (Ciminelli-Cowper) and Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital (Hospital) and the cross motion of defendant John W. Danforth Company (Danforth) seeking summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Ciminelli-Cowper and Danforth. Those defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not supervise, direct, or control the worksite and, in any event, plaintiffs raised a triable question of fact on that issue ( see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 506). Because plaintiffs alleged a violation of a regulation mandating compliance with concrete specifications, the court properly denied defendants' motion and cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action ( see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 501-505). Finally, the court properly denied the motions of Ciminelli-Cowper and the Hospital and third-party defendant Buffalo Wholesale Supply Company, Inc., d/b/a Niagara Insulations Inc., and the cross motion of Danforth seeking a conditional order of common-law indemnification. An issue of fact exists whether those parties are responsible for the accident ( see, Rissel v. Nornew Energy Supply, 281 A.D.2d 880, 881; Colyer v. K Mart Corp., 273 A.D.2d 809, 809-810). We have considered the remaining contentions of the parties and conclude that they lack merit.


Summaries of

Ertl v. Ciminelli-Cowper Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 9, 2001
288 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Ertl v. Ciminelli-Cowper Co.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ERTL AND MAUREEN ERTL, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CIMINELLI-COWPER…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 206

Citing Cases

Wormuth v. Freeman Interiors, Ltd.

Defendants also established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of…

Giglio v. St. Joseph Intercomm. Hosp

We further modify the order by denying that part of Ciminelli's cross motion seeking a conditional order of…