Greaves v. Obayashi Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greaves v. Obayashi Corp.

61 A.D.3d 570, 877 N.Y.S.2d 299

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

DecidedApril 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 570 (Greaves v. Obayashi 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

Greaves v. Obayashi Corp., 61 A.D.3d 570, 877 N.Y.S.2d 299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered June 5, 2008, which, upon reargument, granted defendant Total Safety’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action as well as all third-party and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint and claims against Total Safety reinstated.

When a concrete wall on which plaintiff was working collapsed, concrete blocks fell against the unsecured scaffold he was standing on, knocking it over and causing him to fall to the ground. The portion of the wall where plaintiff was working was neither braced nor secured, and he was not wearing a harness.

[571]*571Upon reargument, the court erred in determining that there was no issue of fact as to whether Total Safety had the authority to supervise and control plaintiffs use of the scaffold (compare Barraco v First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 25 AD3d 427, 428 [2006], with Doherty v City of New York, 16 AD3d 124 [2005]). The evidence indicates that pursuant to the general contract with defendant Howell, Total Safety’s site safety manager was at the work site on a daily basis, inspected the workers and the scaffold several times a day, and was required to “make certain” that the scaffold was properly equipped. Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31529(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered June 5, 2008, which, upon reargument, granted defendant Total Safety’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action as well as all third-party and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint and claims against Total Safety reinstated.

When a concrete wall on which plaintiff was working collapsed, concrete blocks fell against the unsecured scaffold he was standing on, knocking it over and causing him to fall to the ground. The portion of the wall where plaintiff was working was neither braced nor secured, and he was not wearing a harness.

[571]*571Upon reargument, the court erred in determining that there was no issue of fact as to whether Total Safety had the authority to supervise and control plaintiffs use of the scaffold (compare Barraco v First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 25 AD3d 427, 428 [2006], with Doherty v City of New York, 16 AD3d 124 [2005]). The evidence indicates that pursuant to the general contract with defendant Howell, Total Safety’s site safety manager was at the work site on a daily basis, inspected the workers and the scaffold several times a day, and was required to “make certain” that the scaffold was properly equipped. Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31529(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 570, 877 N.Y.S.2d 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greaves-v-obayashi-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack