Lehner v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York

221 A.D.2d 958, 633 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 958 (Lehner v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York) 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
Lehner v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, 221 A.D.2d 958, 633 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memo[959]*959randum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant D.A. Elia Construction Corp. (see, Lehner v Dormitory Auth., 201 AD2d 948). The court erred, however, in granting summary judgment to defendants dismissing the Labor Law § 200 causes of action. Plaintiff submitted proof that defendants affirmatively created the dangerous condition that caused his accident by directing the placement of steel beams at a location that did not permit the safe passage of large pieces of construction equipment (see, Samiani v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 199 AD2d 796, 797). Thus, plaintiff "may be able to show that defendant^] * * * exercised the requisite degree of supervision and control over the portion of the work that led to his injury” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer HydroElec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 506).

The court also erred in granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) causes of action. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries are the result of defendants’ violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.1 (a) (1), which requires that building materials be "so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare.” We conclude that that regulation is specific enough to support the Labor Law § 241 (6) causes of action (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 502-504; Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Labor Law.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

Slowe v. Lecesse Constr. Servs., LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 01887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Castillo v. 3440 LLC
46 A.D.3d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Juchniewicz v. Merex Food Corp.
46 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Wray v. Morse Diesel International Inc.
23 A.D.3d 260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Nelson v. Sweet Associates, Inc.
15 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Fernez v. Kellogg
2 A.D.3d 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Scannell v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
256 A.D.2d 214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Cafarella v. Harrison Radiator Division of General Motors
237 A.D.2d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.
225 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 A.D.2d 958, 633 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehner-v-dormitory-authority-of-the-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.