Rosado v. Union Square 14th Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosado v. Union Square 14th Street Associates

247 A.D.2d 316, 668 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1613

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 316 (Rosado v. Union Square 14th Street Associates) 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

Rosado v. Union Square 14th Street Associates, 247 A.D.2d 316, 668 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered January 9, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries brought by a building employee against the building’s managing agent, denied the agent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the provision in the management agreement between the building and the agent requiring the latter to perform “routine supervision” of the former’s service employees, we reject the agent’s argument that, as a matter of law, it owed no duty of care to plaintiff (see, Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp., 76 NY2d 220, 226). We also see a need for further disclosure as to how the agent’s routine supervisory duties were practically construed, particularly in relation to work assignments like that which allegedly put plaintiff at risk of coming into contact with an uninsulated steam pipe. The foregoing should not be understood as a limitation of issues of fact.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered January 9, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries brought by a building employee against the building’s managing agent, denied the agent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the provision in the management agreement between the building and the agent requiring the latter to perform “routine supervision” of the former’s service employees, we reject the agent’s argument that, as a matter of law, it owed no duty of care to plaintiff (see, Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp., 76 NY2d 220, 226). We also see a need for further disclosure as to how the agent’s routine supervisory duties were practically construed, particularly in relation to work assignments like that which allegedly put plaintiff at risk of coming into contact with an uninsulated steam pipe. The foregoing should not be understood as a limitation of issues of fact.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 316, 668 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosado-v-union-square-14th-street-associates-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack