Emmons v. City of New York

283 A.D.2d 244, 725 N.Y.S.2d 29, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 244 (Emmons v. City of New York) 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
Emmons v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 244, 725 N.Y.S.2d 29, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered on or about August 9, 2000, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s argument that it should not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor is inappropriately pre[245]*245sented for the first time on appeal (see, Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276), and we decline to review it. In any event, the argument would be unavailing under the facts here present. Although one retaining an independent contractor generally is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligence, there are exceptions to this rule of non-liability, including situations where the work of the independent contractor is for the benefit of the owner of a building under a non-delegable duty not to cause harm to members of the public traveling on the nearby public sidewalk (see, Schwartz v Merola Bros. Constr. Corp., 290 NY 145; Appel v Muller, 262 NY 278, 280) or where the one for whose benefit the work is done knows or has reason to know that the assigned work involves special dangers inherent in the work or dangers which should have been anticipated (see, Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 79 NY2d 663, 668). Here, where the evidence indicates that plaintiff fell in a thoroughfare at or near the area recently excavated by an independent contractor repairing appellant building owner’s main control water valve, questions of fact are raised as to whether the instant situation falls within either of the aforementioned exceptions (see, id.; Wright v Tudor City Twelfth Unit, 276 NY 303, 307). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

Wendy-Geslin v. Oil Doctors
2024 NY Slip Op 01835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Linder v. United Metro Energy Servs. Corp.
2021 NY Slip Op 02250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Joshua R. v. 101 Delancey Realty, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 8258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Kosakowski v. 1372 Broadway Assoc., LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 2753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Porteous v. J-Tek Group, Inc.
125 A.D.3d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Gamer v. Ross
49 A.D.3d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Ortiz v. Nunez
32 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Kopinska v. Metal Bright Maintenance Co.
309 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 A.D.2d 244, 725 N.Y.S.2d 29, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmons-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.