From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc. [4th Dept 1999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 31, 1999
(N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 1999)

Opinion

March 31, 1999

Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: HAYES, J. P., WISNER, PIGOTT, JR., SCUDDER AND CALLAHAN, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion to renew although plaintiffs offered no explanation for their failure to submit certain documents at the time of the original motions and cross motion ( see, Lesanti v. Harmac Indus., 175 A.D.2d 664). Upon renewal, the court properly concluded that a factual issue exists whether plaintiff Joseph Gonzalez, who was dismantling air conditioning ductwork in the computer room of a bank, was engaged in demolition work, as that term is defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 (b) (16) ( cf., Casale v. Washington Mills Electro Mineral Corp., 216 A.D.2d 881, 882). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (e), which is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) ( see generally, Jackson v. Williamsville Cent. School Dist., 229 A.D.2d 985, 986). Consequently, those portions of the motions and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action were properly denied upon renewal.


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc. [4th Dept 1999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 31, 1999
(N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 1999)
Case details for

Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc. [4th Dept 1999

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH GONZALEZ AND PATRICIA GONZALEZ, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MARINE…

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

Date published: Mar 31, 1999

Citations

(N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 1999)