Nolan v. J.C.S. Realty, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nolan v. J.C.S. Realty, LLC

79 A.D.3d 414, 910 N.Y.S.2d 906

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 2010·Published

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 8, 2010, which, inter alia, granted defendant J.C.S. Realty’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that defendant timely served its motion (see Azcona v Salem, 49 AD3d 343 [2008]). In any event, the motion court could consider the motion to the extent that it addressed the same issues that were the subject of defendant TeleVast’s undisputedly timely motion (Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 71 AD3d 538, 540 [2010]).

Defendant demonstrated that it exercised no supervisory control over the activity that brought about plaintiff’s injury (see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876 [1993]).

There is no evidence that J.C. Studios and defendant J.C.S. Realty did not operate as separate corporate entities (see [415] Figueiredo v New Palace Painters Supply Co. Inc., 39 AD3d 363, 364 [2007]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 8, 2010, which, inter alia, granted defendant J.C.S. Realty’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that defendant timely served its motion (see Azcona v Salem, 49 AD3d 343 [2008]). In any event, the motion court could consider the motion to the extent that it addressed the same issues that were the subject of defendant TeleVast’s undisputedly timely motion (Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 71 AD3d 538, 540 [2010]).

Defendant demonstrated that it exercised no supervisory control over the activity that brought about plaintiff’s injury (see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876 [1993]).

There is no evidence that J.C. Studios and defendant J.C.S. Realty did not operate as separate corporate entities (see [415] Figueiredo v New Palace Painters Supply Co. Inc., 39 AD3d 363, 364 [2007]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Nolan v. J.C.S. Realty, LLC, 79 A.D.3d 414, 910 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

79 A.D.3d 414 (Nolan v. J.C.S. Realty, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related