Alfonseca v. Van-Tag Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alfonseca v. Van-Tag Construction Corp.

39 A.D.3d 266, 833 N.Y.S.2d 458

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 5, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 266 (Alfonseca v. Van-Tag Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alfonseca v. Van-Tag Construction Corp., 39 A.D.3d 266, 833 N.Y.S.2d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 14, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion and cross motion by defendants Van-Tag Construction and Piermont Ironworks for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Owners, contractors and their agents can be liable under Labor Law § 200 (1) only if they had the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury, so as to be able to avoid or correct the unsafe condition (see e.g. Lombardi v Stout, 80 [267]*267NY2d 290 [1992]). The language of the respective construction contracts does not subject these defendants to liability here (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]), and plaintiff failed to show other means by which Van-Tag or Piermont had the requisite control to establish liability. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 14, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion and cross motion by defendants Van-Tag Construction and Piermont Ironworks for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Owners, contractors and their agents can be liable under Labor Law § 200 (1) only if they had the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury, so as to be able to avoid or correct the unsafe condition (see e.g. Lombardi v Stout, 80 [267]*267NY2d 290 [1992]). The language of the respective construction contracts does not subject these defendants to liability here (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]), and plaintiff failed to show other means by which Van-Tag or Piermont had the requisite control to establish liability. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 266, 833 N.Y.S.2d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfonseca-v-van-tag-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack