Hall v. City Fence, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall v. City Fence, Inc.

103 A.D.3d 1183, 958 N.Y.S.2d 641

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 1183 (Hall v. City Fence, 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

Hall v. City Fence, Inc., 103 A.D.3d 1183, 958 N.Y.S.2d 641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered March 19, 2012. The order, among other things, denied the motion of defendant Dr. R. Reed Stevens for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, to the extent that the amended complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, may be construed as alleging that defendant Dr. R. Reed Stevens is vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of defendant City Fence, Inc. (City Fence), the court properly noted in its decision that no such liability can attach because City Fence is an independent contractor (see Kleeman v Rheingold, 81 NY2d 270, 273-274 [1993]). Present—Smith, J.P, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

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

from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered March 19, 2012. The order, among other things, denied the motion of defendant Dr. R. Reed Stevens for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, to the extent that the amended complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, may be construed as alleging that defendant Dr. R. Reed Stevens is vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of defendant City Fence, Inc. (City Fence), the court properly noted in its decision that no such liability can attach because City Fence is an independent contractor (see Kleeman v Rheingold, 81 NY2d 270, 273-274 [1993]). Present—Smith, J.P, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 1183, 958 N.Y.S.2d 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-city-fence-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack