From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santamaria v. RRI Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 24, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment failed to establish that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition, i.e., a piece of wood on a stone floor, which allegedly caused the accident. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's complaint, which is based on the common-law duty to provide a safe place to work, as codified by Labor Law § 200 (1), must be dismissed (Monroe v. City of New York, 67 A.D.2d 89, 95-96). We have examined the plaintiff's remaining arguments, including those relating to Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, and find them to be without merit (DaBolt v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 92 A.D.2d 70, 74; Sprague v. Louis Picciano, Inc., 100 A.D.2d 247). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Santamaria v. RRI Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Santamaria v. RRI Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK SANTAMARIA, Appellant, v. RRI REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
540 N.Y.S.2d 318

Citing Cases

Pouso v. City of New York

In short, as I stated above, there is absolutely no nexus between the work and the owners which would justify…

Lundquist v. Ditmas Realty Co.

In addition, the defendant established its entitlement to dismissal of the plaintiff's common-law negligence…