From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilcox v. Paragon Cable T.V

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 3, 1997
241 A.D.2d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

July 3, 1997

Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a City of Jamestown (City) utility pole to which he had been installing a television cable line. Defendant Paragon Cable T.V. (Paragon) was successor in interest to the holder of a license granted by the City permitting the installation of a cable line and attachments to the pole. Paragon hired plaintiff's employer to install the cable line and attachments. Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The record establishes that Paragon is an "owner" under Labor Law § 240 (1). Paragon contracted to have the installation work performed for its benefit and had the power to enforce safety standards and to choose responsible contractors (see, Clute v. Ellis Hosp., 184 A.D.2d 942, 944; see also, Lynch v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 590, 591; cf., Dedario v. New York Tel. Co., 162 A.D.2d 1001).

The court should have granted in part Paragon's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6), § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. With respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, plaintiff failed to allege a violation of a specific regulation (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 505). With respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, the record establishes that Paragon did not exercise supervision or control over the work of plaintiff or his employer and that the dangerous condition arose from the methods of plaintiff's employer (see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Summary Judgment.)


Summaries of

Wilcox v. Paragon Cable T.V

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 3, 1997
241 A.D.2d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Wilcox v. Paragon Cable T.V

Case Details

Full title:KELLY WILCOX, Respondent-Appellant, v. PARAGON CABLE T.V.…

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

Date published: Jul 3, 1997

Citations

241 A.D.2d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 397

Citing Cases

Widrig v. Alltel New York, Inc. [4th Dept 2001

We disagree. Although Alltel did not own the utility poles, it owned the lines attached to those poles.…

Otero v. Cablevision of NY

in support of his summary judgment motion (see, Borchardt v New York Life Ins. Co., 102 AD2d 465, 467, affd…