Joachimsen v. Perini Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joachimsen v. Perini Corp.

253 A.D.2d 737, 677 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9411

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 737 (Joachimsen v. Perini Corp.) 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

Joachimsen v. Perini Corp., 253 A.D.2d 737, 677 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated July 9, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted evidence establishing that it had no supervisory control over the removal of the “trimmi pile” and, therefore, had not violated Labor Law § 200 (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877). The plaintiffs’ opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury (cf., Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 506).

Furthermore, the court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for breach of Labor Law § 241 (6) since the plaintiffs failed to allege violations of specific sections of the Industrial Code either in their complaint or bill of particulars (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra; Phelan v State of New York, 238 AD2d 882; Orr v Christa Constr., 206 AD2d 881). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated July 9, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted evidence establishing that it had no supervisory control over the removal of the “trimmi pile” and, therefore, had not violated Labor Law § 200 (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877). The plaintiffs’ opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury (cf., Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 506).

Furthermore, the court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for breach of Labor Law § 241 (6) since the plaintiffs failed to allege violations of specific sections of the Industrial Code either in their complaint or bill of particulars (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra; Phelan v State of New York, 238 AD2d 882; Orr v Christa Constr., 206 AD2d 881). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 737, 677 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joachimsen-v-perini-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack