Imling v. Port Authority

289 A.D.2d 104, 734 N.Y.S.2d 163, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12292
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by130 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 104 (Imling v. Port Authority) 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
Imling v. Port Authority, 289 A.D.2d 104, 734 N.Y.S.2d 163, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered October 6, 2000, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July, 12, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action based thereon, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff, an airline mechanic employed by American Airlines, alleges that he was injured when he fell from a ladder while making repairs to an American Airlines jet. Defendant Port Authority leases the airport from the City of New York and subleased the hangar space where plaintiff was injured to American Airlines. Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the Port Authority was properly dismissed since American Airlines was not a general contractor hired by the Port Authority but rather a sublessee operating its own business and [105]*105servicing its own equipment on the leased premises (see, Guzman v L.M.P. Realty Corp., 262 AD2d 99), and there is no evidence otherwise tending to show that the Port Authority had the right or authority to control the work site (see, Bart v Universal Pictures, 277 AD2d 4, 5). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. Section II Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 02008 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Wong v. City of New York
65 A.D.3d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hodges v. Boland's Excavating & Topsoil, Inc.
24 A.D.3d 1089 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 A.D.2d 104, 734 N.Y.S.2d 163, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imling-v-port-authority-nyappdiv-2001.