Lickers v. Albert Elia Building Co.

105 A.D.2d 1069, 482 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21149
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 7, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1069 (Lickers v. Albert Elia Building Co.) 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
Lickers v. Albert Elia Building Co., 105 A.D.2d 1069, 482 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: High Steel Structures, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment dismissing this personal injury action under the Labor Law. It is undisputed that High Steel, the principal subcontractor, subcontracted erection of the structural steel to Whale Riggers and Erectors, Inc., Howard Dickers’ employer. Inasmuch as Dickers has asserted no facts to suggest that High Steel had authority to supervise and control either his activities or the work site, the complaint was properly dismissed against that defendant (see Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 318; Kopacz v Airo Carbon, 104 AD2d 722; Kenny v Fuller Co., 87 AD2d 183, mot for lv to app den 58 NY2d 603). Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against Albert Elia Building Co. (Elia), the general contractor, was properly denied. As the general contractor, Elia is absolutely liable regardless of the degree of its control over the work provided that plaintiffs can establish that there has been a violation of section 240 of the Labor Law and that the violation was the proximate cause of Howard Dickers’ injury (see Smith v Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 89 AD2d 361, app dsmd 58 NY2d 824). In that regard there are factual issues with respect to the sufficiency of the safety devices available to Dickers; whether he could have used the safety devices without impairing his ability to perform the tasks to which he was assigned; whether the safety devices were placed so as to give him proper protection; and whether the scaffold on which he was working was more than 20 feet from the ground. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, McGowan, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Related

Hernandez v. New York City
162 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Lickers v. State
118 A.D.2d 331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.2d 1069, 482 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lickers-v-albert-elia-building-co-nyappdiv-1984.