Bergstrom v. Plaza Construction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bergstrom v. Plaza Construction

16 A.D.3d 256, 791 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3006

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 256 (Bergstrom v. Plaza Construction) 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

Bergstrom v. Plaza Construction, 16 A.D.3d 256, 791 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered October 24, 2003, which, in an action by a construction worker for personal injuries allegedly caused by, inter alia, violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.25, denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff argues that although the trial court’s charge correctly stated that under Labor Law § 241 (6) a site’s owner is vicariously liable for violations of the Industrial Code committed by subcontractors as well as the general contractor, in applying the law to the facts, the charge erroneously limited his claim to one against the owner for Industrial Code violations committed by the general contractor. In fact, plaintiff argues, the evidence showed that it was subcontractors, especially his employer, who committed the Industrial Code violations in issue, for which the general contractor as well as the owner are vicariously liable. However, the claimed error was not preserved by an objection (CPLR 4110-b; see De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306 [1983]), and it is not so fundamental as to warrant review in the interest of justice (see Goldberg v Wirtosko, 182 AD2d 350 [1992]). In any event, the claimed error requires review of the evidence, yet the only portion of the trial transcript included in the record is the jury charge. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered October 24, 2003, which, in an action by a construction worker for personal injuries allegedly caused by, inter alia, violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.25, denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff argues that although the trial court’s charge correctly stated that under Labor Law § 241 (6) a site’s owner is vicariously liable for violations of the Industrial Code committed by subcontractors as well as the general contractor, in applying the law to the facts, the charge erroneously limited his claim to one against the owner for Industrial Code violations committed by the general contractor. In fact, plaintiff argues, the evidence showed that it was subcontractors, especially his employer, who committed the Industrial Code violations in issue, for which the general contractor as well as the owner are vicariously liable. However, the claimed error was not preserved by an objection (CPLR 4110-b; see De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 306 [1983]), and it is not so fundamental as to warrant review in the interest of justice (see Goldberg v Wirtosko, 182 AD2d 350 [1992]). In any event, the claimed error requires review of the evidence, yet the only portion of the trial transcript included in the record is the jury charge. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 256, 791 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bergstrom-v-plaza-construction-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack