Minor v. Gelco Builders, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minor v. Gelco Builders, Inc.

254 A.D.2d 114, 679 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10856

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 114 (Minor v. Gelco Builders, 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

Minor v. Gelco Builders, Inc., 254 A.D.2d 114, 679 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered December 29, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or for summary judgment on its cause of action against third-party defendants for common-law indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact preclude summary judgment in appellant’s favor. Such issues include whether and when appellant placed a barricade around the hole it created, whether such was a proper safety precaution, whether it was appellant who removed the barricade, and, if not, whether it was foreseeable that third-party defendants would remove it given the contract provision that the depot was to remain in operation while repairs were being made, and who directed and supervised the covering of the hole with the metal plate that flipped up and came down on plaintiffs foot when a bus passed over it. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered December 29, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or for summary judgment on its cause of action against third-party defendants for common-law indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact preclude summary judgment in appellant’s favor. Such issues include whether and when appellant placed a barricade around the hole it created, whether such was a proper safety precaution, whether it was appellant who removed the barricade, and, if not, whether it was foreseeable that third-party defendants would remove it given the contract provision that the depot was to remain in operation while repairs were being made, and who directed and supervised the covering of the hole with the metal plate that flipped up and came down on plaintiffs foot when a bus passed over it. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 114, 679 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minor-v-gelco-builders-inc-nyappdiv-1998.