Sanchez v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 244, 756 N.Y.S.2d 44

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 244 (Sanchez 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

Sanchez v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 244, 756 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered on or about August 12, 2002, which, in an action by a hotel housekeeper for personal injuries sustained when she tripped over a groove in the concrete floor in a portion of the hotel undergoing renovation, denied motions by defendants general contractor and demolition contractor for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record does not permit findings as to the extent of defendant Lehrer McGovern Bovis’s responsibility for site safety and control over the demolition contractor’s work. In this regard, we note such defendant’s failure to produce its [245]*245contracts with the hotel arid the contractor (cf. Crespo v Triad, Inc., 294 AD2d 145, 146 [2002]), and evidence that such defendant coordinated and scheduled the work at the site, directed the demolition contractor’s foreman as to the work to be performed each day and shared responsibility for covering holes. Concerning the demolition contractor, evidence that it was the only entity that had performed demolition work on the floor where plaintiff fell, that such work involved ripping off all floor coverings and may have included the use of scrappers and “chipping guns,” and that plaintiff had observed grooves in the floor immediately after the contractor had finished its work some months before she fell, constitutes circumstances that, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, permit a reasonable inference that the contractor’s work created the groove or uncovered it (see Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744 [1986]; cf. Healy v ARP Cable, 299 AD2d 152, 154-155 [2002]). Assuming the groove was readily observable, such fact would not negate defendants’ liability for failing to keep the premises reasonably safe (see Orellana v Merola Assoc., 287 AD2d 412, 413 [2001]; Gaffney v Port Auth.of N.Y. & N.J., 301 AD2d 424 [2003]) but rather be a factor to be considered as part of comparative negligence. We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered on or about August 12, 2002, which, in an action by a hotel housekeeper for personal injuries sustained when she tripped over a groove in the concrete floor in a portion of the hotel undergoing renovation, denied motions by defendants general contractor and demolition contractor for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record does not permit findings as to the extent of defendant Lehrer McGovern Bovis’s responsibility for site safety and control over the demolition contractor’s work. In this regard, we note such defendant’s failure to produce its [245]*245contracts with the hotel arid the contractor (cf. Crespo v Triad, Inc., 294 AD2d 145, 146 [2002]), and evidence that such defendant coordinated and scheduled the work at the site, directed the demolition contractor’s foreman as to the work to be performed each day and shared responsibility for covering holes. Concerning the demolition contractor, evidence that it was the only entity that had performed demolition work on the floor where plaintiff fell, that such work involved ripping off all floor coverings and may have included the use of scrappers and “chipping guns,” and that plaintiff had observed grooves in the floor immediately after the contractor had finished its work some months before she fell, constitutes circumstances that, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, permit a reasonable inference that the contractor’s work created the groove or uncovered it (see Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744 [1986]; cf. Healy v ARP Cable, 299 AD2d 152, 154-155 [2002]). Assuming the groove was readily observable, such fact would not negate defendants’ liability for failing to keep the premises reasonably safe (see Orellana v Merola Assoc., 287 AD2d 412, 413 [2001]; Gaffney v Port Auth.of N.Y. & N.J., 301 AD2d 424 [2003]) but rather be a factor to be considered as part of comparative negligence. We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 244, 756 N.Y.S.2d 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-lehrer-mcgovern-bovis-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack