Ricotta v. Praxis Biologics, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ricotta v. Praxis Biologics, Inc.

265 A.D.2d 878, 695 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9982

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 878 (Ricotta v. Praxis Biologics, 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

Ricotta v. Praxis Biologics, Inc., 265 A.D.2d 878, 695 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action. Plaintiff, an employee of Christa Construction, Inc. (Christa), injured his back when he lifted a concrete vibrator from wet concrete by leaning over the rail of scaffolding and pulling it up with a hose. Defendants met their initial burden by establishing that plaintiff’s work with respect to the construction of foundation walls was controlled by Christa. Plaintiff established that the safety director of defendant Raymond LeChase, Inc. (LeChase) had supervisory authority over safety standards, i.e., he was authorized to stop plaintiff’s work in the event that he informed Christa of a safety concern and Christa failed to correct it. However, that authority is not sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether LeChase exercised control over plaintiffs work (see, McCune v Black Riv. Constructors, 225 AD2d 1078, 1078-1079; Enderlin v Hebert Indus. Insulation, 224 AD2d 1020, 1020-1021; cf., Rizzuto v Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 353). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action. Plaintiff, an employee of Christa Construction, Inc. (Christa), injured his back when he lifted a concrete vibrator from wet concrete by leaning over the rail of scaffolding and pulling it up with a hose. Defendants met their initial burden by establishing that plaintiff’s work with respect to the construction of foundation walls was controlled by Christa. Plaintiff established that the safety director of defendant Raymond LeChase, Inc. (LeChase) had supervisory authority over safety standards, i.e., he was authorized to stop plaintiff’s work in the event that he informed Christa of a safety concern and Christa failed to correct it. However, that authority is not sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether LeChase exercised control over plaintiffs work (see, McCune v Black Riv. Constructors, 225 AD2d 1078, 1078-1079; Enderlin v Hebert Indus. Insulation, 224 AD2d 1020, 1020-1021; cf., Rizzuto v Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 353). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 878, 695 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricotta-v-praxis-biologics-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack