From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGregor v. Bravo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 1998
251 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 10, 1998

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.

Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) cause of action. Plaintiff, an employee of defendants Dean Mortise and Donna Mortise, doing business as A Cut Above, was injured when he fell to the ground while removing a tree on the premises owned by defendant Joseph Bravo. Upon learning that the tree had a large cracked limb, Bravo hired A Cut Above to remove it in order to protect the apartment building on the premises from any harm if the tree or its cracked limb fell. Because the tree removal was not "necessary and incidental to or an integral part" of a protected activity involving a building or structure under Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1), Bravo is not liable under that section (Mosher v. St. Joseph's Villa, 184 A.D.2d 1000, 1002; cf., Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 296). To the extent that our determination is inconsistent with Mamo v. Rochester Gas Elec. Corp. ( 209 A.D.2d 948, lv dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 924), we will no longer follow it.


Summaries of

McGregor v. Bravo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 1998
251 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

McGregor v. Bravo

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY McGREGOR, Appellant, v. JOSEPH BRAVO et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 240

Citing Cases

Rogers v. C/S Associates Ltd. Partnership I

We first note that the Court of Appeals only last year stated that the "integral and necessary part" test…

Palmer v. Butts

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On a prior appeal in this action, we stated that H. Robert…