Bennett v. Hucke
60 N.E.3d 1200, 28 N.Y.3d 964
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendants-respondents Alan Kirk et al. are subject to general contractor liability for when James Bennett was injured.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bennett v. Hucke, 60 N.E.3d 1200, 28 N.Y.3d 964 (N.Y. 2016).
60 N.E.3d 1200 (Bennett v. Hucke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Yaguachi v. Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 3691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Paul v. Village of Quogue
2019 NY Slip Op 9014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Pelonero v. Sturm Roofing, LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 6327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Cusumano v. AM&G Waterproofing, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 2767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Lamar v. Hill International, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 6167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Kearney v. Dynegy, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 5209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Vazquez v. Humboldt Seigle Lofts, LLC
2016 NY Slip Op 8225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)