Davis v. Wind-Sun Construction, Inc.

70 A.D.3d 1383, 894 N.Y.S.2d 621
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 1383 (Davis v. Wind-Sun Construction, 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
Davis v. Wind-Sun Construction, Inc., 70 A.D.3d 1383, 894 N.Y.S.2d 621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered May 6, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Kenneth Davis (plaintiff) while he was attempting to move the fabricated steel components of a pedestrian bridge into his employer’s facility on Akron Road in Lockport. Defendant was the general contractor on the project to construct the pedestrian bridge at Lyndon Road in Fairport, and entered into a subcontract with plaintiffs employer to fabricate the steel bridge components.

Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. That statute applies to “construction, excavation and demolition work,” and plaintiff was not engaged in such work when he was injured (id.). Indeed, plaintiffs accident did not occur at the construction site but, rather, it occurred while he was engaged in the fabrication of steel bridge components at his employer’s facility. Thus, he was not engaged in an activity protected under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see Solly v Tam Ceramics, 258 AD2d 914 [1999]; Safe v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 258 AD2d 933 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 818 [1999]). Furthermore, plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) at the time of the accident, and thus the court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for the violation of that statute (see generally Solly, 258 AD2d 914 [1999]). Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Preston v. APCH, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 6236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Archer-Vail v. LHV Precast Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Karwowski v. 1407 Broadway Real Estate, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 1422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Gerrish v. 56 Leonard LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 1262 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co.
79 A.D.3d 1631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A.D.3d 1383, 894 N.Y.S.2d 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-wind-sun-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2010.