Opinion
October 2, 1998
Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Summary Judgment.
Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the cross motions of defendants Steger Material Handling Co., Inc. (Steger Material), and J.G.M. Installation Service, Inc. (JGM), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There is proof from which the trier of fact could conclude that JGM created the condition that caused the accident and that Steger Material is responsible for the negligence of its subcontractor. The question of proximate cause "may be determined by the court as a matter of law only when there is but one conclusion that may be drawn from the facts" ( Miglino v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 451; see, Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Co., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315, rearg denied 52 N.Y.2d 784).
The court also properly denied that part of plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and pierce the corporate veil of Steger Material by adding Richard Steger as a defendant. The corporate form may not be disregarded merely because the assets of the corporation and its insurance are insufficient to assure a potential plaintiff of recovery ( see, Walkovszky v. Carlton, 18 N.Y.2d 414, 419; Bowles v. Errico, 163 A.D.2d 771, 773).
The court erred, however, in granting that part of plaintiff's motion seeking to state additional causes of action for alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Because plaintiff was neither working on the loading dock renovation nor employed to carry out the repairs, she is not within the class of workers protected by those statutes ( see, Gibson v. Worthington Div., 78 N.Y.2d 1108; Valinoti v. Sandvik Seamco, 246 A.D.2d 344). We modify the order, therefore, by denying that part of plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff's remaining contention is not preserved for our review.