From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fox v. Jenny Engineering Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 6, 1987
514 N.E.2d 1374 (N.Y. 1987)

Opinion

Argued September 2, 1987

Decided October 6, 1987

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Daniel A. DePasquale, J.

James B. Tuttle for appellant.

Timothy J. Perry for Jenny Engineering Corporation, respondent.

James L. Fischer and Eugene H. Goldberg for Lozier Architects and Engineers, respondent.

Roger G. Preston, Jr., for Everett G. Wambach and another, respondents.



Orders affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Appellate Division, for the reasons stated in its memorandum ( 122 A.D.2d 532), that defendant Wambach was not an "owner" within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) and defendants Jenny Engineering Corporation and Lozier Architects and Engineers were not agents of the owner within the meaning of that statute, and we reach no other issue.

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

Fox v. Jenny Engineering Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 6, 1987
514 N.E.2d 1374 (N.Y. 1987)
Case details for

Fox v. Jenny Engineering Corporation

Case Details

Full title:THEODORE FOX, Appellant, v. JENNY ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Respondent, et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 6, 1987

Citations

514 N.E.2d 1374 (N.Y. 1987)
514 N.E.2d 1374
520 N.Y.S.2d 750

Citing Cases

Staples v. Town of Amherst

In response, plaintiffs contend that section 240 (1) does apply to these facts and that we should reconsider…

Magrath v. J. Migliore Constr. Co., Inc.

cordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff was seriously injured when he fell from an unfinished…