Opinion
July 12, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RGE) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this negligence action. Plaintiffs' son inadvertently touched a 7200 volt primary wire owned by RGE while climbing a tree; the shock caused him to fall 25 feet to the ground. Plaintiffs submitted proof in evidentiary form raising an issue of fact whether RGE properly insulated the wire ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). Plaintiffs also raised an issue of fact whether RGE failed to exercise reasonable care in operating and maintaining its power line ( see, Miner v. Long Is. Light. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 372, 378-379). Contrary to RGE's contention, plaintiffs' expert witness, Ralph Bozarth, a licensed engineer with experience in the electrical industry, possesses the requisite skill, training and knowledge to render an opinion regarding the proper insulation of power lines ( see, Matott v. Ward, 48 N.Y.2d 455, 459).
We further conclude that the court properly granted the cross motion for summary judgment of defendants Laidlaw Tree Service, Inc., and Lewis Tree Services, Inc. (referred to collectively as Laidlaw), which are successors in interest to Monroe Tree Lawn Tender, Inc., an independent contractor hired by RGE to trim the tree from which plaintiffs' son fell. Laidlaw trimmed the tree in accordance with RGE specifications at least 14 months before the accident. RGE inspected and approved Laidlaw's work. Thus, Laidlaw performed its contractual duties owed to RGE and, under the circumstances of this case, it did not owe a further duty of care to plaintiffs or the general public ( see generally, Waters v. New York City Hous. Auth., 69 N.Y.2d 225, 229; Strauss v. Belle Realty Co., 65 N.Y.2d 399, 402-403). In the absence of such a duty, Laidlaw cannot be held liable for negligence ( see, Pulka v Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 782, rearg denied 41 N.Y.2d 901).