Calogrides v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calogrides v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc.

89 A.D.3d 434, 931 N.Y.2d 869

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 434 (Calogrides v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc.) 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

Calogrides v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc., 89 A.D.3d 434, 931 N.Y.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

As it is undisputed that Spring is not an owner or contractor or agent for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), the causes of action under those Labor Law sections should be dismissed as against it (see Morales v Spring Scaffolding, Inc., 24 AD3d 42 [2005]). The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should be dismissed as against Spring because there .is no evidence that Spring’s initial installation of the sidewalk bridge was negligent or defective or that Spring otherwise breached any duty owed to plaintiff (compare Morales, 24 AD3d at 47 [citing evidence that parapet wall violated Industrial Code height requirement]; Barraco v First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 25 AD3d 427, 428 [2006] [sidewalk bridge “appears not to have been built to code”]). Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

As it is undisputed that Spring is not an owner or contractor or agent for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), the causes of action under those Labor Law sections should be dismissed as against it (see Morales v Spring Scaffolding, Inc., 24 AD3d 42 [2005]). The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should be dismissed as against Spring because there .is no evidence that Spring’s initial installation of the sidewalk bridge was negligent or defective or that Spring otherwise breached any duty owed to plaintiff (compare Morales, 24 AD3d at 47 [citing evidence that parapet wall violated Industrial Code height requirement]; Barraco v First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 25 AD3d 427, 428 [2006] [sidewalk bridge “appears not to have been built to code”]). Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 434, 931 N.Y.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calogrides-v-spring-scaffolding-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack