Dextre v. Port Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dextre v. Port Authority

244 A.D.2d 449, 665 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11621

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 449 (Dextre v. Port Authority) 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

Dextre v. Port Authority, 244 A.D.2d 449, 665 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated December 16, 1996, as granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the defendants did not exercise any supervisory control over the plaintiff, or direct the plaintiff’s work, summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s common-law cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 was properly granted (see, Comes [450]*450v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876; Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated December 16, 1996, as granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the defendants did not exercise any supervisory control over the plaintiff, or direct the plaintiff’s work, summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s common-law cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 was properly granted (see, Comes [450]*450v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876; Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 449, 665 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dextre-v-port-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack