Piatek v. Oak Drive Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piatek v. Oak Drive Enterprises, Inc.

129 A.D.3d 812, 9 N.Y.S.3d 890

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

DecidedJune 10, 2015

Docket2014-02500

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 812 (Piatek v. Oak Drive Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Piatek v. Oak Drive Enterprises, Inc., 129 A.D.3d 812, 9 N.Y.S.3d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated December 11, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendant St. Andrews Ukranian Orthodox Church for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, also dated December 11, 2013, as granted that branch of the motion of the third-party defendant Vojtek Construction, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant St. Andrews Ukranian Orthodox Church.

Ordered that the first order dated December 11, 2013, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the second order dated December 11, 2013, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

*813 The Supreme Court properly granted the separate motions of the defendant St. Andrews Ukranian Orthodox Church (hereinafter SA) and the third-party defendant Vojtek Construction, Inc. (hereinafter together the movants), for summary judgment dismissing the verified complaint insofar as asserted against SA. The movants established, prima facie, that SA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that, for the purposes of the Labor Law, SA was not an owner of the property at which the subject accident allegedly occurred (see Alvarez v Hudson Val. Realty Corp., 107 AD3d 748, 748 [2013]; Cortez v Northeast Realty Holdings, LLC, 78 AD3d 754, 757 [2010]; Ryba v Almeida, 27 AD3d 718, 719 [2006]; Billman v CLF Mgt., 19 AD3d 346, 347-348 [2005]). The movants also established, prima facie, that SA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it (see Alvarez v Hudson Val. Realty Corp., 107 AD3d at 748-749; Cortez v Northeast Realty Holdings, LLC, 78 AD3d at 757; Ryba v Almeida, 27 AD3d at 719). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated December 11, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendant St. Andrews Ukranian Orthodox Church for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, also dated December 11, 2013, as granted that branch of the motion of the third-party defendant Vojtek Construction, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant St. Andrews Ukranian Orthodox Church.

Ordered that the first order dated December 11, 2013, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the second order dated December 11, 2013, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

*813 The Supreme Court properly granted the separate motions of the defendant St. Andrews Ukranian Orthodox Church (hereinafter SA) and the third-party defendant Vojtek Construction, Inc. (hereinafter together the movants), for summary judgment dismissing the verified complaint insofar as asserted against SA. The movants established, prima facie, that SA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that, for the purposes of the Labor Law, SA was not an owner of the property at which the subject accident allegedly occurred (see Alvarez v Hudson Val. Realty Corp., 107 AD3d 748, 748 [2013]; Cortez v Northeast Realty Holdings, LLC, 78 AD3d 754, 757 [2010]; Ryba v Almeida, 27 AD3d 718, 719 [2006]; Billman v CLF Mgt., 19 AD3d 346, 347-348 [2005]). The movants also established, prima facie, that SA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it (see Alvarez v Hudson Val. Realty Corp., 107 AD3d at 748-749; Cortez v Northeast Realty Holdings, LLC, 78 AD3d at 757; Ryba v Almeida, 27 AD3d at 719). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 812, 9 N.Y.S.3d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piatek-v-oak-drive-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack