Gatto v. Turano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gatto v. Turano

6 A.D.3d 390, 773 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedApril 5, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 390 (Gatto v. Turano) 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

Gatto v. Turano, 6 A.D.3d 390, 773 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated February 24, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant Carl Kruger, sued herein as Carl Cruger for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against the defendant Carl Kruger, sued herein as Carl Cruger and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs, and the cause of action to recover damages for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against Carl Kruger, sued herein as Carl Cruger is reinstated.

“A common-law duty rests on an owner or general contractor to provide a safe place to work which protects employees of subcontractors (Caspersen v La Sala Bros., 253 NY 491 [1930])” see Rusin v Jackson Hgts. Shopping Ctr., 27 NY2d 103, 106 [1970]). Liability for common-law negligence will attach where a plaintiffs injuries were sustained as the result of a defective or dangerous condition at a work site, only if the owner or general contractor exercised supervision and control over the work performed at the site or had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition causing the accident (see Duncan v Perry, 307 AD2d 249 [2003]; Giambalvo v Chemical Bank, 260 AD2d 432 [1999]; Cuartas v Kourkoumelis, 265 AD2d 293 [1999]; Sprague v Peckham Materials Corp., 240 AD2d 392 [1997]). The [391]*391defendant Carl Kruger, sued herein as Carl Cruger failed to meet his burden of establishing his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he did not supervise or control the work performed at the site, or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition that caused the injured plaintiffs accident. Thus, the Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against him. Accordingly, we reinstate that cause of action. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Rivera, 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, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated February 24, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant Carl Kruger, sued herein as Carl Cruger for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against the defendant Carl Kruger, sued herein as Carl Cruger and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs, and the cause of action to recover damages for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against Carl Kruger, sued herein as Carl Cruger is reinstated.

“A common-law duty rests on an owner or general contractor to provide a safe place to work which protects employees of subcontractors (Caspersen v La Sala Bros., 253 NY 491 [1930])” see Rusin v Jackson Hgts. Shopping Ctr., 27 NY2d 103, 106 [1970]). Liability for common-law negligence will attach where a plaintiffs injuries were sustained as the result of a defective or dangerous condition at a work site, only if the owner or general contractor exercised supervision and control over the work performed at the site or had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition causing the accident (see Duncan v Perry, 307 AD2d 249 [2003]; Giambalvo v Chemical Bank, 260 AD2d 432 [1999]; Cuartas v Kourkoumelis, 265 AD2d 293 [1999]; Sprague v Peckham Materials Corp., 240 AD2d 392 [1997]). The [391]*391defendant Carl Kruger, sued herein as Carl Cruger failed to meet his burden of establishing his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he did not supervise or control the work performed at the site, or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition that caused the injured plaintiffs accident. Thus, the Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against him. Accordingly, we reinstate that cause of action. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 390, 773 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatto-v-turano-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack