Beazer v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

New York Court of Appeals

Beazer v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

962 N.E.2d 256, 18 N.Y.3d 833, 938 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2011 NY Slip Op 8998

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 2011

Docket232

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 962 N.E.2d 256 (Beazer v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beazer v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 962 N.E.2d 256, 18 N.Y.3d 833, 938 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2011 NY Slip Op 8998 (N.Y. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiff Edward Beazer sliced his left thumb while using an unguarded angle grinder to cut a piece of exposed hollow steel tube out of a concrete floor at a construction site at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City. At the time, plaintiff was employed by Turner Construction Company, the construction manager for the Bellevue project pursuant to a contract with the New York State Dormitory Authority (DASNY), the owner of the premises. Defendant Beys Contracting, Inc. was working on the project under a separate contract with DASNY.

Plaintiff subsequently sued New York City, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Beys for damages, asserting causes of action for violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and for common-law negligence. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and all cross claims against the City and HHC on the ground that the State of New York owned Bellevue; and granted Beys summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law claims (2009 NY Slip Op 31291[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2009]). As for plaintiffs common-law negligence cause of action, Supreme Court denied Beys’s motion on the ground there were material disputed issues of fact. The Appellate Division agreed, with two Justices dissenting (76 AD3d 405 *835 [1st Dept 2010]). Beys appeals to us by permission of the Appellate Division.

We affirm. There are unresolved factual issues bearing on whether Beys owed any duty to plaintiff with respect to the condition of the grinder. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the grinder was owned by Beys or Turner, and as to the circumstances under which plaintiff came to possess the grinder.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiff Edward Beazer sliced his left thumb while using an unguarded angle grinder to cut a piece of exposed hollow steel tube out of a concrete floor at a construction site at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City. At the time, plaintiff was employed by Turner Construction Company, the construction manager for the Bellevue project pursuant to a contract with the New York State Dormitory Authority (DASNY), the owner of the premises. Defendant Beys Contracting, Inc. was working on the project under a separate contract with DASNY.

Plaintiff subsequently sued New York City, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Beys for damages, asserting causes of action for violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and for common-law negligence. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and all cross claims against the City and HHC on the ground that the State of New York owned Bellevue; and granted Beys summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law claims (2009 NY Slip Op 31291[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2009]). As for plaintiffs common-law negligence cause of action, Supreme Court denied Beys’s motion on the ground there were material disputed issues of fact. The Appellate Division agreed, with two Justices dissenting (76 AD3d 405 *835 [1st Dept 2010]). Beys appeals to us by permission of the Appellate Division.

We affirm. There are unresolved factual issues bearing on whether Beys owed any duty to plaintiff with respect to the condition of the grinder. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the grinder was owned by Beys or Turner, and as to the circumstances under which plaintiff came to possess the grinder.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

962 N.E.2d 256, 18 N.Y.3d 833, 938 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2011 NY Slip Op 8998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beazer-v-new-york-city-health-and-hospitals-corporation-ny-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack