Barnes v. City of New York

77 A.D.3d 481, 908 N.Y.S.2d 579

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered May 11, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was proper since plaintiffs work, which consisted of disconnecting power cables from the third rail to allow a signal construction project to proceed safely, was a separate phase of work, distinct from any construction and thus, not a covered activity under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see Nagel v D & R Realty Corp., 99 NY2d 98 [2002]; Caban v Maria Estela Houses I Assoc., L.P., 63 AD3d 639 [2009]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Barnes v. City of New York, 77 A.D.3d 481, 908 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

77 A.D.3d 481 (Barnes v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nagel v. D & R REALTY CORP.
782 N.E.2d 558 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Caban v. Maria Estela Houses I Associates, L.P.
63 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)