Sammartino v. Vanderbilt Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sammartino v. Vanderbilt Associates

249 A.D.2d 377, 670 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 377 (Sammartino v. Vanderbilt 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

Sammartino v. Vanderbilt Associates, 249 A.D.2d 377, 670 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated February 10, 1997, as granted the respective motions of the defendants and the third-party defendant T.F.L. Electrical, Inc., to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages based on a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the work performed by the injured plaintiff was not construction work within the meaning of Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, e.g., Vernieri v Empire Realty Co., 219 AD2d 593, 595-596; Walton v Devi Corp., 215 AD2d 60). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated February 10, 1997, as granted the respective motions of the defendants and the third-party defendant T.F.L. Electrical, Inc., to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages based on a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the work performed by the injured plaintiff was not construction work within the meaning of Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, e.g., Vernieri v Empire Realty Co., 219 AD2d 593, 595-596; Walton v Devi Corp., 215 AD2d 60). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 377, 670 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sammartino-v-vanderbilt-associates-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack