Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc.

259 A.D.2d 999, 689 N.Y.S.2d 881

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 999 (Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc.) 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

Gonzalez v. Marine Midland Bank, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 999, 689 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in grant[1000]*1000ing plaintiffs’ motion to renew although plaintiffs offered no explanation for their failure to submit certain documents at the time of the original motions and cross motion (see, Lesanti v Harmac Indus., 175 AD2d 664). Upon renewal, the court properly concluded that a factual issue exists whether plaintiff Joseph Gonzalez, who was dismantling air conditioning duct-work in the computer room of a bank, was engaged in demolition work, as that term is defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 (b) (16) (cf., Casale v Washington Mills Electro Min. Corp., 216 AD2d 881, 882). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (e), which is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see generally, Jackson v Williamsville Cent. School Dist., 229 AD2d 985, 986). Consequently, those portions of the motions and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action were properly denied upon renewal. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in grant[1000]*1000ing plaintiffs’ motion to renew although plaintiffs offered no explanation for their failure to submit certain documents at the time of the original motions and cross motion (see, Lesanti v Harmac Indus., 175 AD2d 664). Upon renewal, the court properly concluded that a factual issue exists whether plaintiff Joseph Gonzalez, who was dismantling air conditioning duct-work in the computer room of a bank, was engaged in demolition work, as that term is defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 (b) (16) (cf., Casale v Washington Mills Electro Min. Corp., 216 AD2d 881, 882). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (e), which is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see generally, Jackson v Williamsville Cent. School Dist., 229 AD2d 985, 986). Consequently, those portions of the motions and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action were properly denied upon renewal. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 999, 689 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-marine-midland-bank-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack