From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Panetta v. Paramount Communications, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1998
255 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 30, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion is granted in its entirety, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) should have been dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to plead any violation of a specific, concrete safety provision of the Industrial Code ( see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876; Greenwood v. Shearson, Lehman Hutton, 238 A.D.2d 311; Lillis v. City of New York, 226 A.D.2d 592). Moreover, those provisions of the Industrial Code cited by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment are inapplicable to the facts of this case.

Liability under Labor Law § 200 Lab. and common-law negligence will not attach when the dangerous condition complained of was open and obvious ( see, Gasper v. Ford Motor Co., 13 N.Y.2d 104; Bellofatto v. Frengs, 246 A.D.2d 566; Wilhouski v. Canon U.S.A., 212 A.D.2d 525). Here, the injured plaintiff hit his head on an overhead pipe, which was part of the scaffolding at his worksite. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly denied those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under Labor Law § 200 Lab. and common-law negligence.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Altman and Friedmaun, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Panetta v. Paramount Communications, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1998
255 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Panetta v. Paramount Communications, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALFREDO D. PANETTA et al., Respondents, v. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 85

Citing Cases

Zyats v. Bristled Five Corp.

McMahon v. Durst,et al, 224 AD2d 324. Therefore in order for a plaintiff to successfully make a claim under…

Westbrook v. WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts.

Even if we agreed that the claimed hazard here was open and obvious as a matter of law, we would still deny…