Bronzino v. NYNEX

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bronzino v. NYNEX

262 A.D.2d 236, 692 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7435

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

DecidedJune 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 236 (Bronzino v. NYNEX) 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

Bronzino v. NYNEX, 262 A.D.2d 236, 692 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered November 16, 1998, as amended by an order of the same court and Justice, entered December 11, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellant’s brief, granted defendant and third-party plaintiff New York Telephone’s motion for summary judgment on its third-party complaint seeking common-law indemnification as against Joe Demasco Interior Renovations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony and other evidence in the record fails to demonstrate that New York Telephone exercised any direct control over the manner in which the plaintiff performed the demolition work in the course of which he was injured. Accordingly, since there exists no common-law ground upon which to hold New York Telephone accountable for plaintiff’s injury, its liability therefor being purely statutory, it was properly awarded judgment upon its claim for common-law indemnification as against plaintiff’s employer, third-party defendant Joe Demasco Interior Renovations, the party with direct supervisory authority over plaintiff’s work at the time of his accident and injury (see, Buccini v 1568 Broadway Assocs., 250 AD2d 466, 468). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered November 16, 1998, as amended by an order of the same court and Justice, entered December 11, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellant’s brief, granted defendant and third-party plaintiff New York Telephone’s motion for summary judgment on its third-party complaint seeking common-law indemnification as against Joe Demasco Interior Renovations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony and other evidence in the record fails to demonstrate that New York Telephone exercised any direct control over the manner in which the plaintiff performed the demolition work in the course of which he was injured. Accordingly, since there exists no common-law ground upon which to hold New York Telephone accountable for plaintiff’s injury, its liability therefor being purely statutory, it was properly awarded judgment upon its claim for common-law indemnification as against plaintiff’s employer, third-party defendant Joe Demasco Interior Renovations, the party with direct supervisory authority over plaintiff’s work at the time of his accident and injury (see, Buccini v 1568 Broadway Assocs., 250 AD2d 466, 468). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 236, 692 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bronzino-v-nynex-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack