Caban v. Bonaco Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caban v. Bonaco Construction Corp.

172 A.D.2d 377

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

DecidedApril 23, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 377 (Caban v. Bonaco Construction Corp.) 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

Caban v. Bonaco Construction Corp., 172 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 24, 1990, which, inter alia, granted defendants Berger Lehman Associates, P. C. and Slattery Associates, Inc.’s motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaints unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appeal from the order of the same court entered on or about November 6, 1989, is dismissed, without costs, said order having been subsumed in the judgment.

Order, of the same court entered on or about June 14, 1990 inter alia granting defendant Jandous Electric Company’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

These two personal injury actions arise out of an explosion and fire which occurred on July 29, 1983, just north of the Union Square IRT subway station while several New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) employees one of whom died from injuries sustained, were engaged in the installation of guard and running rail plates. Plaintiff Davis, one of the injured workers and Rosemarie Caban, the administratrix of the deceased worker, commenced this action against the various contractors engaged by NYCTA to repair and install new tracks and perform certain electrical and signal work.

We have reviewed the record and agree that the IAS court properly granted the motions of defendants Slattery Associates, Inc., Jandous Electric Company and Berger Lehman Associates to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaints as well as all cross claims and counterclaims asserted against them, as no material triable issues of fact existed concerning whether any of their employees caused the fatal explosion and fire. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence, except for unexplained workers in non-Transit Authority uniforms, that one or several of the defendants’ employees were doing construction work on or near the site of the explosion. Concur —Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 24, 1990, which, inter alia, granted defendants Berger Lehman Associates, P. C. and Slattery Associates, Inc.’s motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaints unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appeal from the order of the same court entered on or about November 6, 1989, is dismissed, without costs, said order having been subsumed in the judgment.

Order, of the same court entered on or about June 14, 1990 inter alia granting defendant Jandous Electric Company’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

These two personal injury actions arise out of an explosion and fire which occurred on July 29, 1983, just north of the Union Square IRT subway station while several New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) employees one of whom died from injuries sustained, were engaged in the installation of guard and running rail plates. Plaintiff Davis, one of the injured workers and Rosemarie Caban, the administratrix of the deceased worker, commenced this action against the various contractors engaged by NYCTA to repair and install new tracks and perform certain electrical and signal work.

We have reviewed the record and agree that the IAS court properly granted the motions of defendants Slattery Associates, Inc., Jandous Electric Company and Berger Lehman Associates to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaints as well as all cross claims and counterclaims asserted against them, as no material triable issues of fact existed concerning whether any of their employees caused the fatal explosion and fire. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence, except for unexplained workers in non-Transit Authority uniforms, that one or several of the defendants’ employees were doing construction work on or near the site of the explosion. Concur —Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caban-v-bonaco-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack