From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. 923 Fifth Ave. Condo.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 29, 2013
102 A.D.3d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Summary

finding that "[t]he area of the sidewalk where plaintiff was unloading materials was not a 'passageway' within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)"

Summary of this case from Sicoli v. Riverside Ctr. Parcel 2 Bit Assocs., LLC

Opinion

2013-01-29

Lloyd JOHNSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 923 FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUM, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. McGaw Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Dawn C. DeSimone of counsel), for respondents.



Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. McGaw Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Dawn C. DeSimone of counsel), for respondents.
ANDRIAS, J.P., SWEENY, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, RICHTER, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 23, 2012, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With respect to plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, the record demonstrates that plaintiff's injury was caused by the way he performed his work, not by a dangerous condition of the work site, and that defendants exercised no supervision or control over plaintiff's work ( see Thompson v. BFP 300 Madison II, LLC, 95 A.D.3d 543, 943 N.Y.S.2d 515 [1st Dept. 2012] ). To the extent plaintiff's injury was caused by a tripping hazard on the sidewalk, it does not avail him, since the hazard was created by his employer's placement of the materials on the sidewalk.

The Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) provisions on which plaintiff predicates his Labor Law § 241(6) claim are inapplicable to the facts of his case. The area of the sidewalk where plaintiff was unloading materials was not a “passageway” within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23–1.7(e)(1) ( see Dalanna v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 400, 401, 764 N.Y.S.2d 429 [1st Dept. 2003] ). 12 NYCRR 23–1.7(e)(2) is not applicable because even if the sidewalk may be construed as a floor, platform or similar area where people “work or pass,” plaintiff did not trip over loose or scattered material. He tripped over a piece of plywood that had been purposefully laid over the sidewalk to protect it and that therefore constituted an integral part of the work ( see Rajkumar v. Budd Contr. Corp., 77 A.D.3d 595, 909 N.Y.S.2d 453 [1st Dept. 2010] ).


Summaries of

Johnson v. 923 Fifth Ave. Condo.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 29, 2013
102 A.D.3d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

finding that "[t]he area of the sidewalk where plaintiff was unloading materials was not a 'passageway' within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)"

Summary of this case from Sicoli v. Riverside Ctr. Parcel 2 Bit Assocs., LLC

In Johnson v 923 Fifth Ave. Condominium, 102 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept. 2013], the plaintiff tripped over a piece of plywood that had been purposefully laid over the sidewalk to protect it.

Summary of this case from Stigall v. State
Case details for

Johnson v. 923 Fifth Ave. Condo.

Case Details

Full title:Lloyd JOHNSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 923 FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUM, et…

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

Date published: Jan 29, 2013

Citations

102 A.D.3d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
959 N.Y.S.2d 146
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 425

Citing Cases

Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC

However, nothing in our precedents suggests that a court should determine whether the material at issue is…

Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC

To the extent that the dissent's reasoning injects into the analysis consideration of the propriety of the…