DiRienzo v. James McCullagh of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiRienzo v. James McCullagh of New York, Inc.

59 A.D.3d 308, 873 N.Y.S.2d 305

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 308 (DiRienzo v. James McCullagh of New York, 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

DiRienzo v. James McCullagh of New York, Inc., 59 A.D.3d 308, 873 N.Y.S.2d 305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J), entered October 4, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion, which was brought prior to any discovery being conducted, was appropriate. Although defendants submitted certain documents purporting to demonstrate that they were not liable under the Labor Law for plaintiff’s injuries, the documents raised a number of issues of fact concerning, inter alia, the relationship among various corporate entities and those entities’ presence at the subject work site. Under the circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to discovery to resolve such outstanding questions (see e.g. Primedia Inc. v SBI USA LLC, 43 AD3d 685, 686 [2007]; see also La v New York Infirmary/Beekman Downtown Hosp., 214 AD2d 425 [1995]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J), entered October 4, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion, which was brought prior to any discovery being conducted, was appropriate. Although defendants submitted certain documents purporting to demonstrate that they were not liable under the Labor Law for plaintiff’s injuries, the documents raised a number of issues of fact concerning, inter alia, the relationship among various corporate entities and those entities’ presence at the subject work site. Under the circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to discovery to resolve such outstanding questions (see e.g. Primedia Inc. v SBI USA LLC, 43 AD3d 685, 686 [2007]; see also La v New York Infirmary/Beekman Downtown Hosp., 214 AD2d 425 [1995]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 308, 873 N.Y.S.2d 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dirienzo-v-james-mccullagh-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack