Hanrahan v. Whiting Turner Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanrahan v. Whiting Turner Construction, Inc.

33 A.D.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 456

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 338 (Hanrahan v. Whiting Turner 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

Hanrahan v. Whiting Turner Construction, Inc., 33 A.D.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered October 11, 2005, which, inter alia, denied so much of defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment as sought dismissal of plaintiffs common-law negligence claim against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he fell over rebar protruding from a ramp under construction. In view of factual questions as to whether defendant-appellant created the complained-of danger by failing to erect barricades around its work site, summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence cause against it was properly denied. We note that there is also a factual issue as to whether the alleged hazard was open and obvious (see Juoniene v H.R.H. Constr. Corp., 6 AD3d 199 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered October 11, 2005, which, inter alia, denied so much of defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment as sought dismissal of plaintiffs common-law negligence claim against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he fell over rebar protruding from a ramp under construction. In view of factual questions as to whether defendant-appellant created the complained-of danger by failing to erect barricades around its work site, summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence cause against it was properly denied. We note that there is also a factual issue as to whether the alleged hazard was open and obvious (see Juoniene v H.R.H. Constr. Corp., 6 AD3d 199 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 338, 821 N.Y.S.2d 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanrahan-v-whiting-turner-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack