Colella v. Donaldson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colella v. Donaldson

261 A.D.2d 912, 690 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4979

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 912 (Colella v. Donaldson) 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

Colella v. Donaldson, 261 A.D.2d 912, 690 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant and John Colella (plaintiff) were installing a monorail system at the factory of plaintiffs employer, which was to furnish any necessary personnel and hoisting equipment. Plaintiff injured his back while assisting defendant in lifting one end of a beam and commenced this action asserting the violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Because defendant controlled the manner and method of [913]*913plaintiffs work, he owed a duty to exercise reasonable care for plaintiffs safety with respect to both Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 316-317; Zachara v Occidental Chem. Corp., 144 AD2d 926; cf., Kanney v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 245 AD2d 1034; Smith v Cassadaga Val. Cent. School Dist., 178 AD2d 955, 957). Because defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was not negligent as a matter of law, the motion must be denied (see, Amann v Key Foods Supermarkets, 196 AD2d 759; see also, Walsh v Amherst Constr. Co., 226 AD2d 1053). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant and John Colella (plaintiff) were installing a monorail system at the factory of plaintiffs employer, which was to furnish any necessary personnel and hoisting equipment. Plaintiff injured his back while assisting defendant in lifting one end of a beam and commenced this action asserting the violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Because defendant controlled the manner and method of [913]*913plaintiffs work, he owed a duty to exercise reasonable care for plaintiffs safety with respect to both Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 316-317; Zachara v Occidental Chem. Corp., 144 AD2d 926; cf., Kanney v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 245 AD2d 1034; Smith v Cassadaga Val. Cent. School Dist., 178 AD2d 955, 957). Because defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was not negligent as a matter of law, the motion must be denied (see, Amann v Key Foods Supermarkets, 196 AD2d 759; see also, Walsh v Amherst Constr. Co., 226 AD2d 1053). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 912, 690 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colella-v-donaldson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack