Paulino v. Hearts Service Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paulino v. Hearts Service Co.

28 A.D.3d 362, 814 N.Y.S.2d 62

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

DecidedApril 20, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 362 (Paulino v. Hearts Service Co.) 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

Paulino v. Hearts Service Co., 28 A.D.3d 362, 814 N.Y.S.2d 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered October 25, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant J.E. Levine Builder’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Section 240 (1) does not apply to this accident because the falling window that caused the injury, while “clearly a general hazard of the workplace,” was “not a material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell” (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268-269 [2001]).

As to plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, Levine Builder established that it did not supervise or control the work of the subcontractors (see Vasiliades v Lehrer McGovern & Bovis, 3 AD3d 400, 401-402 [2004]), and that it had no notice of any dangerous condition posed by the window (see Mitchell v New York Univ., 12 AD3d 200, 201 [2004]). Plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to these elements. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered October 25, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant J.E. Levine Builder’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Section 240 (1) does not apply to this accident because the falling window that caused the injury, while “clearly a general hazard of the workplace,” was “not a material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell” (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268-269 [2001]).

As to plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, Levine Builder established that it did not supervise or control the work of the subcontractors (see Vasiliades v Lehrer McGovern & Bovis, 3 AD3d 400, 401-402 [2004]), and that it had no notice of any dangerous condition posed by the window (see Mitchell v New York Univ., 12 AD3d 200, 201 [2004]). Plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to these elements. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 362, 814 N.Y.S.2d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paulino-v-hearts-service-co-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack