Stypick v. City of Lockport

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stypick v. City of Lockport

233 A.D.2d 850, 649 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13317

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 850 (Stypick v. City of Lockport) 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

Stypick v. City of Lockport, 233 A.D.2d 850, 649 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant City of Lockport. There is a question of fact whether the injuries of Richard Stypick (plaintiff) resulted from a fall from an elevated work site (see generally, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 499-501; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509).

The court erred, however, in determining that 12 NYCRR 23-2.7 does not apply to the facts of this case with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973). The court also erred in determining that 12 NYCRR 23-4.3, governing access to excavations, applies to the facts of this case (see, Adamczyk v Hillview Estates Dev. Corp., 226 AD2d 1049).

Finally, the court erred in denying that part of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against defendant O’Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc. That defendant monitored the progress of the work, but neither directed nor controlled plaintiff’s activities (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant City of Lockport. There is a question of fact whether the injuries of Richard Stypick (plaintiff) resulted from a fall from an elevated work site (see generally, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 499-501; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509).

The court erred, however, in determining that 12 NYCRR 23-2.7 does not apply to the facts of this case with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action (see, Adams v Glass Fab, 212 AD2d 972, 973). The court also erred in determining that 12 NYCRR 23-4.3, governing access to excavations, applies to the facts of this case (see, Adamczyk v Hillview Estates Dev. Corp., 226 AD2d 1049).

Finally, the court erred in denying that part of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against defendant O’Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc. That defendant monitored the progress of the work, but neither directed nor controlled plaintiff’s activities (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 850, 649 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stypick-v-city-of-lockport-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack