Harzewski v. Centennial Development, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harzewski v. Centennial Development, Ltd.

309 A.D.2d 1188, 765 N.Y.S.2d 534, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10184

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1188 (Harzewski v. Centennial Development, Ltd.) 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

Harzewski v. Centennial Development, Ltd., 309 A.D.2d 1188, 765 N.Y.S.2d 534, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Fricano, J.), entered February 12, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant Centennial Development, Ltd. for partial summary judgment seeking common-law indemnification from defendant Robert Zulick, individually and doing business as J & W Cleaning.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Centennial Development, Ltd. (Centennial) for partial summary judgment seeking common-law indemnification from defendant Robert Zulick, individually and doing business as J & W Cleaning. We previously held that Centennial, the owner of the building where plaintiff was injured when he fell while cleaning exterior windows, is liable to plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Harzewski v Centennial Dev., 270 AD2d 888 [2000]). However, Centennial failed to establish as a matter of law that Zulick, a subcontractor, actually supervised, directed or controlled plaintiff’s work (see Delaney v Spiegel Assoc., 225 AD2d 1102, 1103 [1996]). Consequently, we reverse the order and deny Centennial’s motion. Present — Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Fricano, J.), entered February 12, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant Centennial Development, Ltd. for partial summary judgment seeking common-law indemnification from defendant Robert Zulick, individually and doing business as J & W Cleaning.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Centennial Development, Ltd. (Centennial) for partial summary judgment seeking common-law indemnification from defendant Robert Zulick, individually and doing business as J & W Cleaning. We previously held that Centennial, the owner of the building where plaintiff was injured when he fell while cleaning exterior windows, is liable to plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Harzewski v Centennial Dev., 270 AD2d 888 [2000]). However, Centennial failed to establish as a matter of law that Zulick, a subcontractor, actually supervised, directed or controlled plaintiff’s work (see Delaney v Spiegel Assoc., 225 AD2d 1102, 1103 [1996]). Consequently, we reverse the order and deny Centennial’s motion. Present — Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1188, 765 N.Y.S.2d 534, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harzewski-v-centennial-development-ltd-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack