Basile v. ICF Kaiser Engineers Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Basile v. ICF Kaiser Engineers Corp.

227 A.D.2d 959, 643 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6888

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

DecidedMay 31, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 959 (Basile v. ICF Kaiser Engineers 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

Basile v. ICF Kaiser Engineers Corp., 227 A.D.2d 959, 643 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint seeking damages for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6). Angelo Basile (plaintiff) slipped on a stack of pipes and fell onto the pipes. Thus, he did not fall from an elevated work site (see, Mitchell v County of Jefferson, 226 AD2d 1109; Cipolla v Flickinger Co., 172 AD2d 1064, 1065), and the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514).

To establish a prima facie cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), plaintiff was required to show that defendants, as nonsupervising owners or contractors, violated a specific rule or regulation of the Commissioner of Labor "mandating compliance with concrete specifications” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 505). He failed to meet that burden. Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5 states a general standard of care and does not support a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation (McGrath v Lake Tree Vil. Assocs., 216 AD2d 877; see also, Dombrowski v Schwartz, 217 AD2d 914). The pipes had been delivered and stacked in a staging area in order to be cleaned. The stack of pipes did not constitute a passageway or elevated work area, and thus 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) does not apply (see, McGrath v Lake Tree Vil. Assocs., supra; Stairs v State St. Assocs., 206 AD2d 817, 818). Moreover, the slippery substance was an integral part of the pipes (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973). The remaining sections of the Industrial Code relied upon by plaintiff (12 NYCRR 23-3.3, 23-5.1, 23-9.8) also do not apply to this case.

Lastly, the proof establishes that defendants exercised no supervisory control over plaintiff’s work. Thus, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint seeking damages for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6). Angelo Basile (plaintiff) slipped on a stack of pipes and fell onto the pipes. Thus, he did not fall from an elevated work site (see, Mitchell v County of Jefferson, 226 AD2d 1109; Cipolla v Flickinger Co., 172 AD2d 1064, 1065), and the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514).

To establish a prima facie cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), plaintiff was required to show that defendants, as nonsupervising owners or contractors, violated a specific rule or regulation of the Commissioner of Labor "mandating compliance with concrete specifications” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 505). He failed to meet that burden. Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5 states a general standard of care and does not support a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation (McGrath v Lake Tree Vil. Assocs., 216 AD2d 877; see also, Dombrowski v Schwartz, 217 AD2d 914). The pipes had been delivered and stacked in a staging area in order to be cleaned. The stack of pipes did not constitute a passageway or elevated work area, and thus 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) does not apply (see, McGrath v Lake Tree Vil. Assocs., supra; Stairs v State St. Assocs., 206 AD2d 817, 818). Moreover, the slippery substance was an integral part of the pipes (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973). The remaining sections of the Industrial Code relied upon by plaintiff (12 NYCRR 23-3.3, 23-5.1, 23-9.8) also do not apply to this case.

Lastly, the proof establishes that defendants exercised no supervisory control over plaintiff’s work. Thus, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 959, 643 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basile-v-icf-kaiser-engineers-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack