Filchuk v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Filchuk v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis Construction, Inc.

232 A.D.2d 329, 648 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11203

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 31, 1996·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 23, 1995, dismissing the complaint upon a grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denial of plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6) and § 200 causes of action, since defendant did not have the [330]*330contractual or other actual authority to control or supervise the activity bringing about plaintiffs injury and was not an agent of plaintiffs employer (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311; Wright v Nichter Constr. Co., 213 AD2d 995). On the contrary, plaintiffs employer specifically chose to have the work performed by its own employees, rather than by defendant or its subcontractors. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 23, 1995, dismissing the complaint upon a grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denial of plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6) and § 200 causes of action, since defendant did not have the [330]*330contractual or other actual authority to control or supervise the activity bringing about plaintiffs injury and was not an agent of plaintiffs employer (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311; Wright v Nichter Constr. Co., 213 AD2d 995). On the contrary, plaintiffs employer specifically chose to have the work performed by its own employees, rather than by defendant or its subcontractors. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Filchuk v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis Construction, Inc., 232 A.D.2d 329, 648 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 329 (Filchuk v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis Construction, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related