From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sullivan v. Main Line Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2002
295 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2002-00242

Submitted May 14, 2002.

June 18, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Main Line Electric Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), entered November 21, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Tromello, McDonnell Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (Kevin P. Slattery of counsel), for appellant.

Gerald P. Goldsmith, New York, N.Y. (Charles M. Newell of counsel) for plaintiffs-respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the complaint against the remaining defendant is severed.

The injured plaintiff alleges that the grating which constituted the first floor of a "pool house" located at Montauk Downs State Park caved in, causing him to fall to the basement, or "pit," below, where the pumps servicing the nearby pool were located. The plaintiffs commenced this action, based on alleged negligence in the installation of the grating.

The defendant Main Line Electric Company (hereinafter Main Line) moved for summary judgment supported by proof that it had nothing to do with the installation of the grating. The plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to contradict this prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. There was also no proof that Main Line in any way supervised the work of the codefendant Norberto and Sons, Inc., which, according to the uncontradicted evidence, did install the grating. Under these circumstances, summary judgment in favor of Main Line should have been granted (see Putnam v. Karaco Indus. Corp., 253 A.D.2d 457; Lillis v. City of New York 226 A.D.2d 592; Rojas v. County of Nassau 210 A.D.2d 390).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sullivan v. Main Line Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2002
295 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Sullivan v. Main Line Electric Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM SULLIVAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-respondents, v. MAIN LINE ELECTRIC…

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

Date published: Jun 18, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 474

Citing Cases

Sullivan v. Main Line Electric Company

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the appellant, Norberto and Sons, Inc., the general contractor…

Steinberg v. D. Waldner Co., Inc.

There is nothing in the record from which it can reasonably be inferred that the file cabinet was defective…