From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Norman v. Welliver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 21, 2008
48 A.D.3d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 503113.

February 21, 2008.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered November 6, 2006 in Tompkins County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Damon Morey, L.L.P., Buffalo (Steven M. Zweig of counsel), for appellants.

Law Office of Joseph D. Callery, Syracuse (James C. Brady of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ.


Alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6) in their complaint, plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff Ronald F. Norman, Jr. due to the method he and a coworker were using to raise the level of a scaffold at a construction site. Norman's employer was a prime contractor on the construction project. Defendant, also a prime contractor on the project, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety, arguing that, among other things, it did not supervise, direct or control the work in which Norman was engaged. Plaintiffs opposed dismissal of their cause of action based upon Labor Law § 200 only, arguing that there is some evidence that defendant exercised supervision and control over Norman's work. Supreme Court found that the evidence presented by plaintiffs did not establish defendant's obligation or authority to direct or control the work that caused Norman's injury, and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appeal and we affirm.

As noted by Supreme Court, a contractor has no liability under Labor Law § 200 or the common law in the absence of evidence that it exercised some supervisory control over the performance of the work ( see Adair v BBL Constr. Servs., LLC, 25 AD3d 971, 972, lv denied 6 NY3d 714; Biance v Columbia Washington Ventures, LLC, 12 AD3d 926, 927). The record here supports Supreme Court's conclusion that conversations about safety between defendant's employee and Norman's supervisor fail to show that defendant had any authority to control the injury-producing work.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Norman v. Welliver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 21, 2008
48 A.D.3d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Norman v. Welliver

Case Details

Full title:RONALD F. NORMAN, JR. et al., Appellants, v. WELLIVER MCGUIRE, INC.…

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

Date published: Feb 21, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1478
851 N.Y.S.2d 310

Citing Cases

Van Hoesen v. Dolen

In addition, the crane operator testified that he did not receive instructions from the Dolens or any…

Capuzzi v. Fuller

As mentioned, the record fails to show that defendant controlled or directed the manner or means in which…