Mount v. Gamble Machine, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mount v. Gamble Machine, Inc.

209 A.D.2d 957, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 957 (Mount v. Gamble Machine, 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

Mount v. Gamble Machine, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 957, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to grant the cross motion for summary judgment of Gamble Distributors, Inc., incorrectly sued as Gamble Machine, Inc. (Gamble). As the owner of the premises, Gamble is only vicariously liable to an injured worker under Labor Law § 240 (see, Pietsch v Moog, Inc., 156 AD2d 1019, 1020). Gamble submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form that it did not exercise any control or supervision over plaintiff and the work project. Under those circumstances, Gamble is entitled to a conditional judgment of indemnification against Creg Systems Corp. (see, Schultz v Harrison Radiator Div., 209 AD2d 956 [decided herewith]; Stimson v Lapp Insulator Co., 186 AD2d 1052; Pietsch v Moog, Inc., supra). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to grant the cross motion for summary judgment of Gamble Distributors, Inc., incorrectly sued as Gamble Machine, Inc. (Gamble). As the owner of the premises, Gamble is only vicariously liable to an injured worker under Labor Law § 240 (see, Pietsch v Moog, Inc., 156 AD2d 1019, 1020). Gamble submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form that it did not exercise any control or supervision over plaintiff and the work project. Under those circumstances, Gamble is entitled to a conditional judgment of indemnification against Creg Systems Corp. (see, Schultz v Harrison Radiator Div., 209 AD2d 956 [decided herewith]; Stimson v Lapp Insulator Co., 186 AD2d 1052; Pietsch v Moog, Inc., supra). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 957, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-v-gamble-machine-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack