McDonagh v. Abrahamsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McDonagh v. Abrahamsen

256 A.D.2d 317, 682 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13186

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 317 (McDonagh v. Abrahamsen) 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

McDonagh v. Abrahamsen, 256 A.D.2d 317, 682 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 14, 1997, which granted the respective motions of the defendant Tora Abrahamsen, individually, and as the administrator of the estate of the deceased Andy Abrahamsen, and the defendants Helen V. Hart and John J. Hart for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants supervised or controlled the manner and method of the work performed by him pursuant to the parties’ oral construction contract. Thus, the Supreme Court correctly found that, as the owners of one- and two-family dwellings, the defendants are exempt from the provisions of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 and are not liable to the plaintiff for the alleged violations thereof (see, Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644; Duclos v Bisordi, 209 AD2d 376).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 14, 1997, which granted the respective motions of the defendant Tora Abrahamsen, individually, and as the administrator of the estate of the deceased Andy Abrahamsen, and the defendants Helen V. Hart and John J. Hart for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants supervised or controlled the manner and method of the work performed by him pursuant to the parties’ oral construction contract. Thus, the Supreme Court correctly found that, as the owners of one- and two-family dwellings, the defendants are exempt from the provisions of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 and are not liable to the plaintiff for the alleged violations thereof (see, Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644; Duclos v Bisordi, 209 AD2d 376).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 317, 682 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonagh-v-abrahamsen-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack