Greso v. Nichter Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greso v. Nichter Construction Co.

267 A.D.2d 1074, 700 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13889

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 1074 (Greso v. Nichter Construction Co.) 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

Greso v. Nichter Construction Co., 267 A.D.2d 1074, 700 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Ciminelli-Cowper Co., Inc. dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Paul T. Greso (plaintiff) when he fell down a permanent stairway. At the time of his fall, plaintiff was carrying a bolt of wall-covering up the stairway. Supreme Court erred in denying that part of the motion of Ciminelli-Cowper Co., Inc. (defendant) seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. “Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply where plaintiff falls on a [1075]*1075permanently installed stairway” (Monroe v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 186 AD2d 1019). Speculation that plaintiff could have safely performed his work with the aid of a material hoist does not defeat defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The fact remains that the stairway where plaintiff fell “was undisputedly a permanent passageway between two parts of the building, and was not a tool or device employed solely to provide access to an elevated worksite” (Sponholz v Benderson Prop. Dev., 266 AD2d 815).

The court also erred in denying that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim and the common-law negligence cause of action. Defendant established that it exercised no supervisory control over the method of plaintiff’s work (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877; McCune v Black Riv. Constructors, 225 AD2d 1078, 1079), and plaintiffs failed to submit proof raising a triable issue of fact. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Ciminelli-Cowper Co., Inc. dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Paul T. Greso (plaintiff) when he fell down a permanent stairway. At the time of his fall, plaintiff was carrying a bolt of wall-covering up the stairway. Supreme Court erred in denying that part of the motion of Ciminelli-Cowper Co., Inc. (defendant) seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. “Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply where plaintiff falls on a [1075]*1075permanently installed stairway” (Monroe v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 186 AD2d 1019). Speculation that plaintiff could have safely performed his work with the aid of a material hoist does not defeat defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The fact remains that the stairway where plaintiff fell “was undisputedly a permanent passageway between two parts of the building, and was not a tool or device employed solely to provide access to an elevated worksite” (Sponholz v Benderson Prop. Dev., 266 AD2d 815).

The court also erred in denying that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim and the common-law negligence cause of action. Defendant established that it exercised no supervisory control over the method of plaintiff’s work (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877; McCune v Black Riv. Constructors, 225 AD2d 1078, 1079), and plaintiffs failed to submit proof raising a triable issue of fact. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 1074, 700 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greso-v-nichter-construction-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack