Bonventre v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonventre v. Rose

271 A.D.2d 468, 706 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4027

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 468 (Bonventre v. Rose) 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

Bonventre v. Rose, 271 A.D.2d 468, 706 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Daniel J. Rose and Thomas Guarascio appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 4, 1999, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as seeks to recover damages based on violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied those branches of the appellants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as seeks to recover damages based on violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) insofar as asserted against them. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the appellant Thomas Guarascio acted as the agent for the appellant Daniel J. Rose and exercised sufficient supervisory control over the worksite so as to render the single-family exemption under Labor Law § 241 (6) inapplicable (see, Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644; Kenny v Fuller Co., 87 AD2d 183; Seaman v A.B. Chance Co., 197 AD2d 612). Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Daniel J. Rose and Thomas Guarascio appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 4, 1999, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as seeks to recover damages based on violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied those branches of the appellants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as seeks to recover damages based on violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) insofar as asserted against them. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the appellant Thomas Guarascio acted as the agent for the appellant Daniel J. Rose and exercised sufficient supervisory control over the worksite so as to render the single-family exemption under Labor Law § 241 (6) inapplicable (see, Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644; Kenny v Fuller Co., 87 AD2d 183; Seaman v A.B. Chance Co., 197 AD2d 612). Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 468, 706 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonventre-v-rose-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack