Wasserman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wasserman v. City of New York

267 A.D.2d 151, 700 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13219

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 151 (Wasserman v. City of New York) 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

Wasserman v. City of New York, 267 A.D.2d 151, 700 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel[152]*152Jacob, J.), entered on or about August 31, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a trip and fall over a raised manhole cover, denied third-party defendant road construction contractor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing third-party plaintiff electric utility’s third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied on the ground that third-party defendant’s initial papers failed to address record evidence tending to show that its subcontractor was working on manholes in the area of the accident at or about the time of the accident (see, Walsh v Turner Constr. Co., 252 AD2d 470). It was not third-party plaintiff’s burden to show that the subcontractor’s work could have affected the height of manhole covers, but rather third-party defendant movant’s burden to show that such work could not have affected the height of manhole covers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Nor did third-party defendant’s submissions demonstrate that it exercised no control or supervision over its subcontractor’s work. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel[152]*152Jacob, J.), entered on or about August 31, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a trip and fall over a raised manhole cover, denied third-party defendant road construction contractor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing third-party plaintiff electric utility’s third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied on the ground that third-party defendant’s initial papers failed to address record evidence tending to show that its subcontractor was working on manholes in the area of the accident at or about the time of the accident (see, Walsh v Turner Constr. Co., 252 AD2d 470). It was not third-party plaintiff’s burden to show that the subcontractor’s work could have affected the height of manhole covers, but rather third-party defendant movant’s burden to show that such work could not have affected the height of manhole covers (see, Winegrad v New York Univ Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Nor did third-party defendant’s submissions demonstrate that it exercised no control or supervision over its subcontractor’s work. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 151, 700 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasserman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack