Cotter v. Structure Tone, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cotter v. Structure Tone, Inc.

247 A.D.2d 275, 667 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1419

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 275 (Cotter v. Structure Tone, 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

Cotter v. Structure Tone, Inc., 247 A.D.2d 275, 667 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about January 14, 1997 which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant Structure Tone, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the deposition testimony of defendant-appellant’s account executive stated that defendant-appellant’s superintendent had direct dealings with the subcontractors at the work site, an issue of fact exists as to whether defendant-appellant, as the general contractor, had supervisory control over its subcontractors and thus could be held liable for a subcontractor’s allegedly negligent actions (see, Hunter v BTC Block 17/ 18, 210 AD2d 968).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about January 14, 1997 which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant Structure Tone, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the deposition testimony of defendant-appellant’s account executive stated that defendant-appellant’s superintendent had direct dealings with the subcontractors at the work site, an issue of fact exists as to whether defendant-appellant, as the general contractor, had supervisory control over its subcontractors and thus could be held liable for a subcontractor’s allegedly negligent actions (see, Hunter v BTC Block 17/ 18, 210 AD2d 968).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 275, 667 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotter-v-structure-tone-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack