Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ferraro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ferraro

299 A.D.2d 910, 749 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10970

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 910 (Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ferraro) 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

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Ferraro, 299 A.D.2d 910, 749 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.), entered August 22, 2001, that denied the cross motion of defendant Erie Boulevard Associates, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the cross motion is granted and the complaint against defendant Erie Boulevard Associates, Inc. is dismissed.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Erie Boulevard Associates, Inc. (Erie) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Erie met its initial burden by establishing that it had hired independent contractors to perform the work that resulted in damage to plaintiff’s property and that it did not direct, control or supervise the work (see Kleeman v Rheingold, 81 NY2d 270, 273-274). In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether any exception to the general rule of nonliability with respect to independent contractors applies in this case (see McSorley v Tripoli, 284 AD2d 900, 901; cf. McCants v Thompson, 285 AD2d 967; see generally Kleeman, 81 NY2d at 274). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.), entered August 22, 2001, that denied the cross motion of defendant Erie Boulevard Associates, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the cross motion is granted and the complaint against defendant Erie Boulevard Associates, Inc. is dismissed.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Erie Boulevard Associates, Inc. (Erie) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Erie met its initial burden by establishing that it had hired independent contractors to perform the work that resulted in damage to plaintiff’s property and that it did not direct, control or supervise the work (see Kleeman v Rheingold, 81 NY2d 270, 273-274). In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether any exception to the general rule of nonliability with respect to independent contractors applies in this case (see McSorley v Tripoli, 284 AD2d 900, 901; cf. McCants v Thompson, 285 AD2d 967; see generally Kleeman, 81 NY2d at 274). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 910, 749 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niagara-mohawk-power-corp-v-ferraro-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack