Palmatier v. Eastman Kodak Co.

247 A.D.2d 865, 668 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1175

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Eastman Kodak Company dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action based upon common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200. In support of its motion, Kodak submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that it had, at most, a general power to enforce safety standards and did not have supervisory control over the method or manner of the work of plaintiff Richard Palmatier (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877; McCune v Black Riv. Constructors, 225 AD2d 1078, 1079; Enderlin v Hebert Indus. Insulation, 224 AD2d 1020; Brezinski v Olympia & York Water St. Co., 218 AD2d 633, 634-635). Neither plaintiffs nor defendant Castle Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Castle), responded with the requisite evidentiary proof sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The speculation of plaintiffs and Castle that further discovery would yield factual issues precluding summary judgment is insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Armatys v Edwards, 229 AD2d 906; Penn Iron & Metal Co. v Gross, 192 AD2d 1059, 1060; Levy, King & White Adv. v Gallery of Homes, 177 AD2d 967; cf., CPLR 3212 [f]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.