Mulhern v. Manhasset Bay Yacht Club

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mulhern v. Manhasset Bay Yacht Club

22 A.D.3d 470, 803 N.Y.S.2d 90

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 470 (Mulhern v. Manhasset Bay Yacht Club) 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

Mulhern v. Manhasset Bay Yacht Club, 22 A.D.3d 470, 803 N.Y.S.2d 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[471]*471In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), dated September 10, 2003, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendant third-party plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability, and (2) an interlocutory judgment of the same court, entered February 18, 2004, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendant third-party plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order and the interlocutory judgment are affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the injuries sustained by the plaintiff James Mulhern as a result of contact with a load of timber being hoisted by a barge-mounted crane fell within the ambit of Labor Law § 241 (6) (cf. Cammon v City of New York, 21 AD3d 196 [2005]; Sutherland v City of New York, 266 AD2d 373 [1999]). Generally, Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon an owner or general contractor to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers, and a violation of a concrete safety specification of the Industrial Code by a subcontractor on the construction project constitutes some evidence of negligence for which the owner or general contractor may be held vicariously liable (see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 348-349 [1998]; Edwards v C&D Unlimited, 295 AD2d 310 [2002]; Lorefice v Reckson Operating Partnership, 269 AD2d 572 [2000]). Here, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, violations of 12 NYCRR 23-8.1, which governs safe operation of “mobile cranes, tower cranes and derricks.” Although certain provisions within 12 NYCRR 23-8.2 (b) concerning outriggers and footings can only apply to land-based mobile cranes, the provisions which the jury found to have been violated herein are equally applicable to barge-mounted mobile cranes (see e.g. 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 [e] [4]; [f] [1] [iv]; 23-8.2 [c] [3]; 23-8.5 [c]). In the absence of any authority to the contrary, we decline to hold that 12 NYCRR part 23-8 applies exclusively to land-based mobile cranes.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Mastro, JJ, concur.

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

[471]*471In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), dated September 10, 2003, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendant third-party plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability, and (2) an interlocutory judgment of the same court, entered February 18, 2004, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendant third-party plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order and the interlocutory judgment are affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the injuries sustained by the plaintiff James Mulhern as a result of contact with a load of timber being hoisted by a barge-mounted crane fell within the ambit of Labor Law § 241 (6) (cf. Cammon v City of New York, 21 AD3d 196 [2005]; Sutherland v City of New York, 266 AD2d 373 [1999]). Generally, Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon an owner or general contractor to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers, and a violation of a concrete safety specification of the Industrial Code by a subcontractor on the construction project constitutes some evidence of negligence for which the owner or general contractor may be held vicariously liable (see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 348-349 [1998]; Edwards v C&D Unlimited, 295 AD2d 310 [2002]; Lorefice v Reckson Operating Partnership, 269 AD2d 572 [2000]). Here, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, violations of 12 NYCRR 23-8.1, which governs safe operation of “mobile cranes, tower cranes and derricks.” Although certain provisions within 12 NYCRR 23-8.2 (b) concerning outriggers and footings can only apply to land-based mobile cranes, the provisions which the jury found to have been violated herein are equally applicable to barge-mounted mobile cranes (see e.g. 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 [e] [4]; [f] [1] [iv]; 23-8.2 [c] [3]; 23-8.5 [c]). In the absence of any authority to the contrary, we decline to hold that 12 NYCRR part 23-8 applies exclusively to land-based mobile cranes.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Mastro, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 470, 803 N.Y.S.2d 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulhern-v-manhasset-bay-yacht-club-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack