Fuller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

213 A.D.2d 986, 625 N.Y.S.2d 108

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 986 (Fuller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.) 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

Fuller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 213 A.D.2d 986, 625 N.Y.S.2d 108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Robert M. Fuller (plaintiff), a cable television repairman employed by third-party defendant, Harron Communications Corp. (Harron), was injured when the ladder he was climbing slipped, causing him to fall. Plaintiff was investigating a customer’s complaint about "snowy reception”. The cable line was attached to a utility pole owned jointly by defendants, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk) and Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (OCRT). Because the connection to be checked was at a distance from the pole and the ladder was too short to reach Barren’s cable line, plaintiff placed the ladder against the OCRT line located directly below the cable line.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against Niagara Mohawk and OCRT alleging a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint were summarily denied by Supreme Court.

The court erred in denying defendants’ cross motion. A utility pole is a "structure” within the meaning of the statute (see, Lewis-Moors v Contel of N. Y., 78 NY2d 942, 943) and the lines attached thereto may also be considered a structure (see, Garrant v New York Tel. Co., 179 AD2d 960). Also, we conclude that the work being performed by plaintiff constituted a repair or alteration of the structure within the meaning of the statute (see, Dedario v New York Tel. Co., 162 AD2d 1001). Defendants are not liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), however, because they are not "owners” of the television cable line being repaired or altered by plaintiff at the time of the [987]*987accident (see, Labor Law § 240 [1]), and did not otherwise act in the capacity of an owner (see, Mangiameli v Galante, 171 AD2d 162, 164). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.—Labor Law § 240 [1].) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Robert M. Fuller (plaintiff), a cable television repairman employed by third-party defendant, Harron Communications Corp. (Harron), was injured when the ladder he was climbing slipped, causing him to fall. Plaintiff was investigating a customer’s complaint about "snowy reception”. The cable line was attached to a utility pole owned jointly by defendants, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk) and Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (OCRT). Because the connection to be checked was at a distance from the pole and the ladder was too short to reach Barren’s cable line, plaintiff placed the ladder against the OCRT line located directly below the cable line.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against Niagara Mohawk and OCRT alleging a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint were summarily denied by Supreme Court.

The court erred in denying defendants’ cross motion. A utility pole is a "structure” within the meaning of the statute (see, Lewis-Moors v Contel of N. Y., 78 NY2d 942, 943) and the lines attached thereto may also be considered a structure (see, Garrant v New York Tel. Co., 179 AD2d 960). Also, we conclude that the work being performed by plaintiff constituted a repair or alteration of the structure within the meaning of the statute (see, Dedario v New York Tel. Co., 162 AD2d 1001). Defendants are not liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), however, because they are not "owners” of the television cable line being repaired or altered by plaintiff at the time of the [987]*987accident (see, Labor Law § 240 [1]), and did not otherwise act in the capacity of an owner (see, Mangiameli v Galante, 171 AD2d 162, 164). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.—Labor Law § 240 [1].) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 986, 625 N.Y.S.2d 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-niagara-mohawk-power-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack