Mocarska v. 200 Madison Associates, L. P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mocarska v. 200 Madison Associates, L. P.

262 A.D.2d 163, 692 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6799

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

DecidedJune 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 163 (Mocarska v. 200 Madison Associates, L. P.) 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

Mocarska v. 200 Madison Associates, L. P., 262 A.D.2d 163, 692 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered August 5, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendant Alexander Wolf & Son’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs complaint against defendant-respondent Alexander Wolf & Son alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241 was properly dismissed since Alexander Wolf was neither the general contractor of the work in the performance of which plaintiff was injured, nor the agent of the owners who had entered into the contract with plaintiffs employer (see, D’Amico v New York Racing Assn., 203 AD2d 509). While Alexander Wolf performed renovation work upon the premises where plaintiff allegedly sustained her injury, Alexander Wolfs work was wholly separate from that of plaintiffs employer, defendant NSC Abatement, an asbestos removal contractor, and, accordingly, governed by contracts distinct from the contract between NSC and the owner’s managing agent, defendant George Comfort & Sons. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered August 5, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendant Alexander Wolf & Son’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs complaint against defendant-respondent Alexander Wolf & Son alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241 was properly dismissed since Alexander Wolf was neither the general contractor of the work in the performance of which plaintiff was injured, nor the agent of the owners who had entered into the contract with plaintiffs employer (see, D’Amico v New York Racing Assn., 203 AD2d 509). While Alexander Wolf performed renovation work upon the premises where plaintiff allegedly sustained her injury, Alexander Wolfs work was wholly separate from that of plaintiffs employer, defendant NSC Abatement, an asbestos removal contractor, and, accordingly, governed by contracts distinct from the contract between NSC and the owner’s managing agent, defendant George Comfort & Sons. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 163, 692 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mocarska-v-200-madison-associates-l-p-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack