Horowitz v. Marel Electrical Services, Inc.
This text of 271 A.D.2d 572 (Horowitz v. Marel Electrical Services, 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.
Opinion
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated May 19, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
[573]*573The defendant Marel Electrical Services, Inc. (hereinafter Marel), made a prima facie showing that it was not at fault in the happening of the plaintiffs accident. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that Marel failed to install an electrical conduit in accordance with her employer’s specifications (see, Ryan v Feeney & Sheehan Bldg. Co., 239 NY 43, 46; accord, Morriseau v Rifenburg Constr., 223 AD2d 981, 982), or that Marel assumed a continuing duty to inspect the site after completing installation of the electrical conduit (see, Long v Danforth Co., 236 AD2d 781). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
271 A.D.2d 572, 707 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horowitz-v-marel-electrical-services-inc-nyappdiv-2000.