Ertel v. Milbrand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ertel v. Milbrand

295 A.D.2d 962, 743 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6263

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 962 (Ertel v. Milbrand) 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

Ertel v. Milbrand, 295 A.D.2d 962, 743 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered August 13, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Bruce Ertel while removing construction debris from residential property owned by defendants in the Town of Amherst. Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “ ‘[A]n owner does not owe a duty to protect a contractor’s employee from hazards resulting from the contractor’s methods over which the owner exercises no supervisory control’” (Marin v San Martin Rest, 287 AD2d 441, 441-442). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered August 13, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Bruce Ertel while removing construction debris from residential property owned by defendants in the Town of Amherst. Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “ ‘[A]n owner does not owe a duty to protect a contractor’s employee from hazards resulting from the contractor’s methods over which the owner exercises no supervisory control’” (Marin v San Martin Rest, 287 AD2d 441, 441-442). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 962, 743 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ertel-v-milbrand-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack