Tilford v. Sweet Home Real Property Trust

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tilford v. Sweet Home Real Property Trust

40 A.D.3d 966, 834 N.Y.S.2d 664

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

DecidedMay 22, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 966 (Tilford v. Sweet Home Real Property Trust) 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

Tilford v. Sweet Home Real Property Trust, 40 A.D.3d 966, 834 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Cornerstone Construction Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated June 14, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

A general contractor that has control of a work site during the progress of a construction or renovation project may properly be held liable based on its having failed to correct a dangerous condition of which it had actual or constructive notice (see Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Ed., 40 AD3d 706 [2007]; Kerins v Vassar Coll., 15 AD3d 623 [2005]; Blysma v County of Saratoga, 296 AD2d 637, 639 [2002]). Here, there is at the very least an issue of fact as to whether the appellant, while labeled a “construction manager,” might be considered the equivalent of a general contractor for the purposes of applying this general rule (see generally Walls v Turner Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 861 [2005]; Natoli v City of New York, 32 AD3d 507 [2006]; Nienajadlo v Infomart N.Y., LLC, 19 AD3d 384 [2005]; cf. Linkowski v City of New York 33 AD3d 971 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Ritter and Angiolillo, 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 Cornerstone Construction Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated June 14, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

A general contractor that has control of a work site during the progress of a construction or renovation project may properly be held liable based on its having failed to correct a dangerous condition of which it had actual or constructive notice (see Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Ed., 40 AD3d 706 [2007]; Kerins v Vassar Coll., 15 AD3d 623 [2005]; Blysma v County of Saratoga, 296 AD2d 637, 639 [2002]). Here, there is at the very least an issue of fact as to whether the appellant, while labeled a “construction manager,” might be considered the equivalent of a general contractor for the purposes of applying this general rule (see generally Walls v Turner Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 861 [2005]; Natoli v City of New York, 32 AD3d 507 [2006]; Nienajadlo v Infomart N.Y., LLC, 19 AD3d 384 [2005]; cf. Linkowski v City of New York 33 AD3d 971 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Ritter and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 966, 834 N.Y.S.2d 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilford-v-sweet-home-real-property-trust-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack