Haden v. Fenley & Nicol Environmental, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haden v. Fenley & Nicol Environmental, Inc.

273 A.D.2d 273, 709 N.Y.S.2d 582, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6488

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

DecidedJune 12, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 273 (Haden v. Fenley & Nicol Environmental, 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

Haden v. Fenley & Nicol Environmental, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 273, 709 N.Y.S.2d 582, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Fenley & Nicol Environmental, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated February 16, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant Cashin Associates, P. C., appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

On April 28, 1994, the plaintiff Charles Haden, a forklift operator for the Town of Oyster Bay (hereinafter the Town), was injured when he was thrown from the forklift he was operating as it tipped into a hole in the pavement at the Town’s Waste Disposal Plant. Approximately two years before the incident, the Town had employed the defendant Cashin Associates, P. C. (hereinafter Cashin), to provide engineering consultant services with respect to a tank replacement project at the plant and had retained the defendant Fenley & Nicol Environmental, Inc. (hereinafter Fenley), as the contractor on the project.

The Supreme Court properly denied the separate motions of Cashin and Fenley for summary judgment dismissing the com[274]*274plaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, as issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to who created the hole, and the degree of Cashin’s supervision or control over the project (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563; see also, D’Andria v County of Suffolk, 112 AD2d 397).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, 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, the defendant Fenley & Nicol Environmental, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated February 16, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant Cashin Associates, P. C., appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

On April 28, 1994, the plaintiff Charles Haden, a forklift operator for the Town of Oyster Bay (hereinafter the Town), was injured when he was thrown from the forklift he was operating as it tipped into a hole in the pavement at the Town’s Waste Disposal Plant. Approximately two years before the incident, the Town had employed the defendant Cashin Associates, P. C. (hereinafter Cashin), to provide engineering consultant services with respect to a tank replacement project at the plant and had retained the defendant Fenley & Nicol Environmental, Inc. (hereinafter Fenley), as the contractor on the project.

The Supreme Court properly denied the separate motions of Cashin and Fenley for summary judgment dismissing the com[274]*274plaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, as issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to who created the hole, and the degree of Cashin’s supervision or control over the project (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563; see also, D’Andria v County of Suffolk, 112 AD2d 397).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 273, 709 N.Y.S.2d 582, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haden-v-fenley-nicol-environmental-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack