Tighe v. Raimondo Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tighe v. Raimondo Construction Co.

282 A.D.2d 523, 722 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3613

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 523 (Tighe v. Raimondo Construction Co.) 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

Tighe v. Raimondo Construction Co., 282 A.D.2d 523, 722 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Giaquinto Masonry, Inc., appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered January 19, 2000, which, inter alia, denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action based upon Labor Law § 241 (6) and § 200.

[524]*524Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether its workers were responsible for creating the concrete debris that allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries (see, Yong Ju Kim v Herbert Constr. Co., 275 AD2d 709; Barnes v DeFoe /Halmar, 271 AD2d 387; Reiner v Dormitory Auth., 266 AD2d 443). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, 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 defendant Giaquinto Masonry, Inc., appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered January 19, 2000, which, inter alia, denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action based upon Labor Law § 241 (6) and § 200.

[524]*524Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether its workers were responsible for creating the concrete debris that allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries (see, Yong Ju Kim v Herbert Constr. Co., 275 AD2d 709; Barnes v DeFoe /Halmar, 271 AD2d 387; Reiner v Dormitory Auth., 266 AD2d 443). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 523, 722 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tighe-v-raimondo-construction-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack