Baumli v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baumli v. Palmer

199 A.D.2d 787, 608 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12194

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 23, 1993·Published

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Spain, J.), entered November 30, 1992 in Rensselaer County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Plaintiff argues that defendant was a general contractor subject to liability under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241. There are, however, no facts in the record to support a finding that defendant was either an owner, contractor or agent which would subject him to liability under the statutory framework. Therefore, Supreme Court’s award of partial summary judgment to defendant on the causes of action alleging such liability was in all respects proper and should be affirmed.

As a final matter, although Supreme Court’s decision reflects that plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was denied, the order appealed from does not set forth the denial. We nevertheless deem the order to incorporate the court’s decision in this regard.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, White and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Spain, J.), entered November 30, 1992 in Rensselaer County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Plaintiff argues that defendant was a general contractor subject to liability under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241. There are, however, no facts in the record to support a finding that defendant was either an owner, contractor or agent which would subject him to liability under the statutory framework. Therefore, Supreme Court’s award of partial summary judgment to defendant on the causes of action alleging such liability was in all respects proper and should be affirmed.

As a final matter, although Supreme Court’s decision reflects that plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was denied, the order appealed from does not set forth the denial. We nevertheless deem the order to incorporate the court’s decision in this regard.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, White and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Baumli v. Palmer, 199 A.D.2d 787, 608 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

199 A.D.2d 787 (Baumli v. Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related