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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 31, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by67 cases

This text of 855 N.E.2d 1159 (O'SULLIVAN v. IDI Construction Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osullivan-v-idi-construction-company-inc-ny-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack