From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

George Nation v. Morse Diesel, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 1995
214 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Anita Florio, J.).


Dismissal of Woodworks' appeal of the IAS Court's June 3, 1993 order is warranted by the appeal of the IAS Court's superseding order dated January 4, 1994, as well as plaintiff's concession, before the IAS Court and this Court, of the legal insufficiency of its cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6).

Plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 (1) cause of action should be reinstated. Not only did the Court in Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. ( 81 N.Y.2d 494) hold that under section 200 (1) a claim such as plaintiff's would be viable where the owner or general contractor exercised supervisory control at the job site, but Ross also involved a construction contract, as does the instant case, in which the general contractor undertook responsibility for safety at the job site. While this contractual provision is not in itself sufficient to justify holding Morse Diesel, the general contractor, liable for the flawed procedure used to load the sheetrock studs, plaintiff argues, in accordance with the Court's finding in Ross, that a determination of the viability of his section 200 (1) claim should await the completion of further discovery as to whether the employees of Morse Diesel did in fact exercise supervision and control of safety at the job site. In accordance with Ross, we grant plaintiff this relief.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered June 20, 1995.]


Summaries of

George Nation v. Morse Diesel, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 1995
214 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

George Nation v. Morse Diesel, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE NATION, Respondent-Appellant, v. MORSE DIESEL, INC.…

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

Date published: Apr 27, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 555

Citing Cases

Vaneer v. 993 Intervale Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp.

it did not supervise or control the injury-producing work. I would find that defendant has not met its burden…

Kowalska v. Bd., Ed., the City, New York

Thus, that branch of the Board's cross motion which sought this relief is denied. Issues of fact exist…