Torres v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc.

127 A.D.3d 656, 9 N.Y.S.3d 22

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

DecidedApril 28, 2015

Docket14969 301430/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 656 (Torres v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York 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

Torres v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc., 127 A.D.3d 656, 9 N.Y.S.3d 22 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered October 31, 2013, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant The Hallen Construction Co., Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Dismissal of the complaint and all cross claims as against Hallen is warranted in this action where plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell over an uncovered gas valve in the sidewalk. Hallen submitted evidence showing that it did not perform work on the subject valve (see Amini v Arena Constr. Co., Inc., 110 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2013]; Jones v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 95 AD3d 659, 660 [1st Dept 2012]). Although Hallen contracted with defendant Con Ed to install subterranean gas service with a sidewalk valve near the preexisting service and valve, the “as constructed” diagrams of Con Ed show that the work did not involve the valve over which plaintiff tripped. Thus, Hallen had no obligations as to the subject valve, including ensuring that it was covered. Nor is there any evidence that Hallen ever removed the subject valve’s cover in connection with its work (see DeSilva v City of New York, 15 AD3d 252, 254 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered October 31, 2013, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant The Hallen Construction Co., Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Dismissal of the complaint and all cross claims as against Hallen is warranted in this action where plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell over an uncovered gas valve in the sidewalk. Hallen submitted evidence showing that it did not perform work on the subject valve (see Amini v Arena Constr. Co., Inc., 110 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2013]; Jones v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 95 AD3d 659, 660 [1st Dept 2012]). Although Hallen contracted with defendant Con Ed to install subterranean gas service with a sidewalk valve near the preexisting service and valve, the “as constructed” diagrams of Con Ed show that the work did not involve the valve over which plaintiff tripped. Thus, Hallen had no obligations as to the subject valve, including ensuring that it was covered. Nor is there any evidence that Hallen ever removed the subject valve’s cover in connection with its work (see DeSilva v City of New York, 15 AD3d 252, 254 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 656, 9 N.Y.S.3d 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack