Reid v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.

248 A.D.2d 324, 670 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3371

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 324 (Reid v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 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

Reid v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 324, 670 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered February 16, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to raise an issue of fact to whether defendant was the general contractor at plaintiff’s worksite, or otherwise exercised any supervisory control over the work plaintiff was performing on the 11th floor when he fell off a ladder supplied by his employer; accordingly, defendant cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 or 241 (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494). The contract between plaintiff’s employer and the project owner dated February 26, 1990, referring to defendant as the construction manager and calling for sheet metal work, was not the contract under which plaintiff was working at the time of the accident. Rather, as confirmed by plaintiff’s employer’s affidavit, the contract under which plaintiff was working was that between plaintiff’s employer and the project owner dated May 29, 1992, calling for HVAC work and specifically reciting that it pertains to “project: 11th floor”. Defendant is nowhere mentioned in this detailed llth-floor contract; there is documentary evidence, namely a contract, showing that defendant’s presence in and around the building at the time of the accident was in connection with special work it was performing for a tenant for internal construction of space on 1st, 2nd and 12th-23rd floors; and plaintiffs conclusory assertion that persons on the 11th floor performing work and giving him instructions were defendant’s employees is too speculative to raise a genuine issue of fact as to control.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered February 16, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to raise an issue of fact to whether defendant was the general contractor at plaintiff’s worksite, or otherwise exercised any supervisory control over the work plaintiff was performing on the 11th floor when he fell off a ladder supplied by his employer; accordingly, defendant cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 or 241 (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494). The contract between plaintiff’s employer and the project owner dated February 26, 1990, referring to defendant as the construction manager and calling for sheet metal work, was not the contract under which plaintiff was working at the time of the accident. Rather, as confirmed by plaintiff’s employer’s affidavit, the contract under which plaintiff was working was that between plaintiff’s employer and the project owner dated May 29, 1992, calling for HVAC work and specifically reciting that it pertains to “project: 11th floor”. Defendant is nowhere mentioned in this detailed llth-floor contract; there is documentary evidence, namely a contract, showing that defendant’s presence in and around the building at the time of the accident was in connection with special work it was performing for a tenant for internal construction of space on 1st, 2nd and 12th-23rd floors; and plaintiffs conclusory assertion that persons on the 11th floor performing work and giving him instructions were defendant’s employees is too speculative to raise a genuine issue of fact as to control.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 324, 670 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-lehrer-mcgovern-bovis-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack