From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Forman v. Carrier Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
May 3, 2019
172 A.D.3d 1920 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

465 CA 18–02215

05-03-2019

Todd FORMAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CARRIER CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellant.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, SYRACUSE (AARON M. SCHIFFRIK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID S. GRASSO, CENTRAL SQUARE (DAVID S. GRASSO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.


GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, SYRACUSE (AARON M. SCHIFFRIK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID S. GRASSO, CENTRAL SQUARE (DAVID S. GRASSO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained when he fell on the roof of defendant's building while performing asbestos remediation. We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in denying those parts of its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action. Labor Law § 200"is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to maintain a safe construction site" ( Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co. , 91 N.Y.2d 343, 352, 670 N.Y.S.2d 816, 693 N.E.2d 1068 [1998] ). Inasmuch as plaintiff alleges that a defective condition on the premises caused the accident, defendant had the initial burden of establishing that it did not create the defective condition or have actual or constructive notice of it in order to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment on those causes of action (see Verel v. Ferguson Elec. Constr. Co., Inc. , 41 A.D.3d 1154, 1156, 838 N.Y.S.2d 280 [4th Dept. 2007] ; see generally Ramirez v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. , 106 A.D.3d 799, 801–802, 965 N.Y.S.2d 156 [2d Dept. 2013] ). Because defendant failed to meet its burden, the court properly denied its motion with respect to the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] ).


Summaries of

Forman v. Carrier Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
May 3, 2019
172 A.D.3d 1920 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Forman v. Carrier Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Todd FORMAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CARRIER CORPORATION…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: May 3, 2019

Citations

172 A.D.3d 1920 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
172 A.D.3d 1920

Citing Cases

Collver v. Fornino Realty, LLC

We now reverse the order insofar as appealed from. Generally, landowners "have a duty to maintain their…

Carpentieri v. 1438 S. Park Ave. Co.

Initially, we note that this cause of action and claim are based on an alleged dangerous condition at the…