Prestigiacomo v. St. Regis Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prestigiacomo v. St. Regis Hotel

221 A.D.2d 215, 633 N.Y.S.2d 954

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 215 (Prestigiacomo v. St. Regis Hotel) 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

Prestigiacomo v. St. Regis Hotel, 221 A.D.2d 215, 633 N.Y.S.2d 954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 19, 1994, which, upon reargument, granted defendant Otis Elevator Co.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly applied the same analysis to plaintiffs’ statutory and common-law theories of recovery in concluding that they had failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to defendant Otis’s authority to supervise the activity that resulted in the injury. The court also properly determined that the injury was caused by the laborer’s method of operation, which was unforeseeable (see generally, Brezinski v Olympia & York Water St. Co., 218 AD2d 633, 634, quoting Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877; Balaj v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 211 AD2d 487, Iv denied 85 NY2d 811).

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 19, 1994, which, upon reargument, granted defendant Otis Elevator Co.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly applied the same analysis to plaintiffs’ statutory and common-law theories of recovery in concluding that they had failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to defendant Otis’s authority to supervise the activity that resulted in the injury. The court also properly determined that the injury was caused by the laborer’s method of operation, which was unforeseeable (see generally, Brezinski v Olympia & York Water St. Co., 218 AD2d 633, 634, quoting Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877; Balaj v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 211 AD2d 487, Iv denied 85 NY2d 811).

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 215, 633 N.Y.S.2d 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prestigiacomo-v-st-regis-hotel-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack