O'SULLIVAN v. IDI Construction Company, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

O'SULLIVAN v. IDI Construction Company, Inc.

855 N.E.2d 1159, 7 N.Y.3d 805, 822 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2006 NY Slip Op 6344, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 2137

New York Court of Appeals·Decided August 31, 2006·Published·Cited by 67 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The courts below properly concluded that plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2), failed because the electrical pipe or conduit that plaintiff tripped over was an integral part of the construction. Further, plaintiff cannot recover in negligence or pursuant to Labor Law § 200 because no triable issue of fact exists that defendant IDI Construction Company, Inc.’s on-site safety manager “control [led] the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition” (Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317 [1981]) or that IDI maintained an unreasonably dangerous work environment.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The courts below properly concluded that plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2), failed because the electrical pipe or conduit that plaintiff tripped over was an integral part of the construction. Further, plaintiff cannot recover in negligence or pursuant to Labor Law § 200 because no triable issue of fact exists that defendant IDI Construction Company, Inc.’s on-site safety manager “control [led] the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition” (Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317 [1981]) or that IDI maintained an unreasonably dangerous work environment.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

O'SULLIVAN v. IDI Construction Company, Inc., 855 N.E.2d 1159, 7 N.Y.3d 805, 822 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2006 NY Slip Op 6344, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 2137 (N.Y. 2006).

Pincite

855 N.E.2d 1159 (O'SULLIVAN v. IDI Construction Company, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related