Farmer v. Davidson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farmer v. Davidson

203 A.D.2d 513, 612 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4297

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

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 513 (Farmer v. Davidson) 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

Farmer v. Davidson, 203 A.D.2d 513, 612 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered April 7, 1992, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the determination of the Supreme Court that the defendants did not direct or control the manner in which the injured plaintiff worked on their one-family home. Therefore, they are exempt from liability pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (see, Duda v Rouse Constr. Corp., 32 NY2d 405; Schwartz v Foley, 142 AD2d 635; see also, Danish v Kennedy, 168 AD2d 768; Reyes v Silfies, 168 AD2d 979). Miller, J. P., Lawrence, Altman and Krausman, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered April 7, 1992, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the determination of the Supreme Court that the defendants did not direct or control the manner in which the injured plaintiff worked on their one-family home. Therefore, they are exempt from liability pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (see, Duda v Rouse Constr. Corp., 32 NY2d 405; Schwartz v Foley, 142 AD2d 635; see also, Danish v Kennedy, 168 AD2d 768; Reyes v Silfies, 168 AD2d 979). Miller, J. P., Lawrence, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 513, 612 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmer-v-davidson-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack