Pope v. Nestles USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pope v. Nestles USA, Inc.

281 A.D.2d 890, 722 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2705

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 890 (Pope v. Nestles USA, 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

Pope v. Nestles USA, Inc., 281 A.D.2d 890, 722 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the cross motion of defendant Angelo Spadotto Construction, Inc. (Spadotto) seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence and the violation of Labor Law § 200. There is an issue of fact whether Spadotto controlled the manner and method of the work of plaintiff James Pope (see, Colella v Donaldson, 261 AD2d 912), thus precluding an award of summary judgment on that cause of action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). We therefore modify the order by denying the cross motion in part and reinstating that cause [891]*891of action. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the cross motion of defendant Angelo Spadotto Construction, Inc. (Spadotto) seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence and the violation of Labor Law § 200. There is an issue of fact whether Spadotto controlled the manner and method of the work of plaintiff James Pope (see, Colella v Donaldson, 261 AD2d 912), thus precluding an award of summary judgment on that cause of action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). We therefore modify the order by denying the cross motion in part and reinstating that cause [891]*891of action. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 890, 722 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-v-nestles-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack