Home/New York Court of Appeals/Iuliani v. Great Neck Sewer District

Iuliani v. Great Neck Sewer District

346 N.E.2d 547, 38 N.Y.2d 885, 382 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2330
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 12, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 346 N.E.2d 547 (Iuliani v. Great Neck Sewer District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Iuliani v. Great Neck Sewer District, 346 N.E.2d 547, 38 N.Y.2d 885, 382 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2330 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

Memorandum Upon the proof submitted to the trial court the complaint was properly dismissed.

Section 241 of the Labor Law imposes a nondelegable duty on the general contractor or owner to provide a safe place to work. However, he is not responsible for injuries caused by the negligent acts of subcontractors when he—the owner or general contractor—has exercised no control or supervision of the work site. Under those circumstances there is no breach of the duty imposed by section 241 of the Labor Law. (Bidetto v New York City Housing Auth., 25 NY2d 848; Persichilli v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 16 NY2d 136, 146; Wright [887]*887v Belt Assoc., 14 NY2d 129, 134; Hess v Bernheimer & Schwartz Brewing Co., 219 NY 415, 418-419.)

To hold otherwise would result in the owner or general contractor being made a guarantor of the safety of all workmen at the site despite the negligence of any subcontractor and even in the absence of control or supervision by the owner or general contractor.

Nor should our decision in Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div. of Carl A. Morse, Inc. (35 NY2d 1) be construed to require a contrary result. In Kelly the general contractor exercised general supervision and control of the work site and furnished, maintained and operated a personnel hoist which was the sole means of reaching various work areas.

In the instant case neither the owner nor the general contractor participated or in any way controlled the activity causing the injury.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Nagel v. D & R REALTY CORP.
782 N.E.2d 558 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Smith v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
89 A.D.2d 361 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Haimes v. New York Telephone Co.
385 N.E.2d 601 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Allen v. Cloutier Construction Corp.
44 N.Y. 290 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Haimes v. New York Telephone Co.
59 A.D.2d 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.
90 Misc. 2d 911 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1977)
Allen v. Cloutier Construction Corp.
56 A.D.2d 348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Molinari v. Conforti & Eisele, Inc.
54 A.D.2d 1113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Tilkins v. City of Niagara Falls
52 A.D.2d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Dawson v. Diesel Construction Co.
51 A.D.2d 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
346 N.E.2d 547, 38 N.Y.2d 885, 382 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iuliani-v-great-neck-sewer-district-ny-1976.