Malczewski v. Cannon Design, Inc.

125 A.D.2d 941, 510 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63114
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 941 (Malczewski v. Cannon Design, Inc.) 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
Malczewski v. Cannon Design, Inc., 125 A.D.2d 941, 510 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff injured his back moving computer equipment up a stairway at a facility owned by defendant Cannon Design, Inc. (Cannon). Cannon purchased the equipment from defendant California Computer Products, Inc. (Calcomp). Defendant Compass Tool Distributors, Inc. (Compass) provided an appliance dolly which plaintiff determined was too narrow for his purpose, thus requiring him to move the computer equipment by hand. Plaintiff sued Cannon and Calcomp under Labor Law § 241 (6) and sued Compass alleging negligence, strict product liability and breach of warranty. Special Term properly granted summary judgment to each defendant.

[942]*942Labor Law §241 (6) does not apply because at the time plaintiff was injured he was not engaged in "construction” work as required by the statute and defined by regulation (12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [13]). The computer equipment does not constitute a building or structure. The presence of the computer equipment did not change the structural quality of Cannon’s facility in any significant way. The references in the regulation to "hoisting” and "equipment installation” make clear that such activity must occur during the construction, demolition or excavation of a building or structure. No such activity occurred here. Thus, plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to Labor Law §241 (6) was properly dismissed. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining claims and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Related

Hotaling v. Corning Inc.
12 A.D.3d 1064 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Chuchuca v. Redux Realty LLC
303 A.D.2d 239 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Joblon v. Solow
135 F.3d 261 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Nitz v. Gusmer Corp.
245 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Houchang Haghighi v. Bailer
240 A.D.2d 368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Hammond v. Alekna Construction, Inc.
224 A.D.2d 1039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Walton v. Devi Corp.
215 A.D.2d 60 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Vernieri v. Empire Realty Co.
219 A.D.2d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Poulin v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
883 F. Supp. 894 (W.D. New York, 1994)
Giambalvo v. National RR Passenger Corp.
850 F. Supp. 166 (E.D. New York, 1994)
Vilardi v. Berley
201 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Bosse v. City of Hornell
197 A.D.2d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Kesselbach v. Liberty Haulage, Inc.
182 A.D.2d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Jock v. Fien
176 A.D.2d 6 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Vincent v. Industries
172 A.D.2d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Adkins v. Trezins
920 F.2d 164 (Second Circuit, 1990)
Nocera v. Tri-Delta Aggregates, Inc.
163 A.D.2d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Callari v. Pellitieri
130 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.2d 941, 510 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malczewski-v-cannon-design-inc-nyappdiv-1986.