Brooks v. Steel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brooks v. Steel

242 A.D.2d 653, 662 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9196

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 653 (Brooks v. Steel) 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

Brooks v. Steel, 242 A.D.2d 653, 662 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Colar, J.), dated June 3, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing his claim that the defendant violated Labor Law § 241 (6). In the absence of any evidence that the defendant, which was responsible for manufacturing and delivering structural steel to the construction site, exercised any authority or control over the work site or the work giving rise to the plaintiffs injuries, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant was not a statutory agent of either an owner or general contractor (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 318; Barker v Menard, 237 AD2d 839; D’Amico v New York Racing Assn., 203 AD2d 509). Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Colar, J.), dated June 3, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing his claim that the defendant violated Labor Law § 241 (6). In the absence of any evidence that the defendant, which was responsible for manufacturing and delivering structural steel to the construction site, exercised any authority or control over the work site or the work giving rise to the plaintiffs injuries, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant was not a statutory agent of either an owner or general contractor (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 318; Barker v Menard, 237 AD2d 839; D’Amico v New York Racing Assn., 203 AD2d 509). Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 653, 662 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-steel-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack