Hammond v. Alekna Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hammond v. Alekna Construction, Inc.

224 A.D.2d 1039, 637 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1776

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 1039 (Hammond v. Alekna Construction, 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

Hammond v. Alekna Construction, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 1039, 637 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) causes of action against defendants Alekna Construction, Inc., StetsonHarza, Inc., also known as Harza Northeast, Inc., and Joseph A. Giruzzi, Inc., doing business as Joseph A. Giruzzi & Son. At the time she was allegedly injured, plaintiff was working as a secretary for the Utica City School District and, therefore, was "not engaged in a protected activity within Labor Law * * * § 241 (6)” (Warsaw v Eastern Rock Prods., 193 AD2d 1115; see, Jock v Fien, 80 NY2d 965, 967; Mordkofsky v V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 NY2d 573, 576-577; Malczewski v Cannon Design, 125 AD2d 941, 942). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Labor Law.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, 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 properly dismissed plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) causes of action against defendants Alekna Construction, Inc., StetsonHarza, Inc., also known as Harza Northeast, Inc., and Joseph A. Giruzzi, Inc., doing business as Joseph A. Giruzzi & Son. At the time she was allegedly injured, plaintiff was working as a secretary for the Utica City School District and, therefore, was "not engaged in a protected activity within Labor Law * * * § 241 (6)” (Warsaw v Eastern Rock Prods., 193 AD2d 1115; see, Jock v Fien, 80 NY2d 965, 967; Mordkofsky v V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 NY2d 573, 576-577; Malczewski v Cannon Design, 125 AD2d 941, 942). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Labor Law.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 1039, 637 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-alekna-construction-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack