Sacchetti v. Vasile Construction Corp.

5 Citing cases

  1. Brothers v. N.Y. State Elec

    11 N.Y.3d 251 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 127 times
    In Brothers, the Court of Appeals considered whether a utility company undertook a nondelegable duty to comply with federal and state safety regulations by obtaining a construction permit from the State that required compliance with specified safety statutes.

    ev. Group, 191 AD2d 687, 74 NY2d 609; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507; Wolf v City of New York, 39 NY2d 568; Cassell v Babcock Wilcox Co., 186 AD2d 1000; Kaplan v Dart Towing, 159 AD2d 610; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189; City of New York v Kalikow Realty Co., 71 NY2d 957; Burke v City of New York, 2 NY2d 90; People v Wong, 182 AD2d 98; Matter of Express Indus. Term. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Transp., 93 NY2d 584, 1042.) III. New York State Electric and Gas Corporation's (NYSEG) nondelegable duty that it owed plaintiff was breached as a matter of law by Tamarack Forestry Service, Inc. as the proof of its failure to comply with 29 CFR 1910.269 (p) (1) (ii) and 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d) is undisputed and NYSEG introduced no proof that such failures were in the circumstances excusable or otherwise reasonable. ( Wolf v City of New York, 39 NY2d 568; Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343; Copp v City of Elmira, 31 AD3d 899; Rodriguez v City of New York, 232 AD2d 621; Sacchetti v Vasile Constr. Corp., 254 AD2d 777.)

  2. Fisher v. Brown Group, Inc.

    256 A.D.2d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on defendant's liability under Labor Law ยง 241 Lab. (6). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the violation of a specific provision of the Industrial Code, even if admitted by defendant, "does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is `merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant's negligence'" ( Schmeer v. County of Monroe, 175 A.D.2d 633, 633-634, quoting Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 522, rearg denied 65 N.Y.2d 1054; see, Sacchetti v. Vasile Constr. Corp., 254 A.D.2d 777; Irwin v. St. Joseph's Intercommunity Hosp., 236 A.D.2d 123, 131). We reject plaintiff's contention that defendant and third-party defendant should be precluded from introducing evidence of plaintiffs comparative negligence at trial.

  3. Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n v. M & F, LLC

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 51394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Petitioners may not have summary judgment relief on the Auburn Trail issues (see One Flint St. LLC v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 145 A.D.3d 1490, 1491 (4th Dept 2016) (party failed to meet its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment); Sacchetti v. Vasile Const. Corp., 254 A.D.2d 777 (4th Dept 1998) (same) [Index #: E2018000937 - Docket # 920, p. 9; Index #: E2018002961 - Docket # 855, p. 1]), and Respondents may not either, but some Article 78 claims can be dismissed against them. See e.g. Featherstone v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 550, 554 (2000) (affirming rejection of Article 78 case); Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441 (1978) (affirming order confirming administrative decision).

  4. White v. State

    # 2018-053-522 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May. 11, 2018)

    -------- Finally, the State contends that claimant's comparative negligence must be determined at trial as a question of fact exists so that even where a violation of a specific Industrial Code Rule is found to exist, that is merely some evidence to consider on the question of the State's liability pursuant to Labor Law ยง 241 (6), citing to Cummings v Doo Wha Sung, 142 AD3d 1393, 1394 (4th Dept 2016); Mulcaire v Buffalo Structural Steel Constr. Corp., 45 AD3d 1426, 1428 (4th Dept 2007); Sacchetti v Vasile Constr. Corp., 254 AD2d 777, 778 (4th Dept 1998); and Irwin v St. Joseph's Intercommunity Hosp., 236 AD2d 123, 131-132 (4th Dept 1997). In particular, the State argues that there is conflicting testimony between claimant and his foreman as to whether he continued to give hand signals to her to back up the truck immediately prior to his accident, which goes to claimant's comparative negligence and requires a trial and denial of the present motion.

  5. Streeter v. Kingston

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50170 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    If proven, the general contractor or the owner, as the case may be, is vicariously liable without regard to his or her fault ( see, Rizzuto v. Wenger Construction Corp., 91 NY2d 343). A violation of the Industrial Code, even if admitted, does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is merely some evidence to be considered on the question of defendant's negligence ( see, Puckett v. County of Erie, 262 AD2d 964, 965 [4th Dept 1999]; Sacchetti v. Vasile Construction Corp., 254 AD2d 777 [4th Dept 1998]). There is a clear and significant distinction between a violation of an administrative regulation promulgated pursuant to a statute, and a violation of an explicit provision of a statute proper; while the latter gives rise to absolute liability without regard to whether the failure to observe special statutory precautions was caused by the fault or negligence of any particular individual, the former "is simply some evidence of negligence which the jury could take into consideration with all the other evidence bearing on that subject" ( see, Rizzuto v. Wenger Construction Corp., 91 NY2d 343, 349 quoting Allen v. Coultier Construction Corp., 44 NY2d 290, 298).