Wendel v. Hari Services International, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wendel v. Hari Services International, Inc.

228 A.D.2d 582, 644 N.Y.2d 625, 644 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 582 (Wendel v. Hari Services International, 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

Wendel v. Hari Services International, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 582, 644 N.Y.2d 625, 644 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. There is [583]*583no indication that the defendant was an "owner” (see, Wendel v Pillsbury Corp., 205 AD2d 527), "contractor” (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311; Townsend v Nenni Equip. Corp., 208 AD2d 825; cf., Kenny v Fuller Co., 87 AD2d 183), or "agent” (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, supra; D’Amico v New York Racing Assn., 203 AD2d 509; Paone v Westwood Vil., 178 AD2d 518; cf., McGlynn v Brooklyn Hosp. Caledonian Hosp., 209 AD2d 486), so as to render it liable pursuant to any provision of the Labor Law alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, there is no indication that the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs based upon common-law negligence (see, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. There is [583]*583no indication that the defendant was an "owner” (see, Wendel v Pillsbury Corp., 205 AD2d 527), "contractor” (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311; Townsend v Nenni Equip. Corp., 208 AD2d 825; cf., Kenny v Fuller Co., 87 AD2d 183), or "agent” (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, supra; D’Amico v New York Racing Assn., 203 AD2d 509; Paone v Westwood Vil., 178 AD2d 518; cf., McGlynn v Brooklyn Hosp. Caledonian Hosp., 209 AD2d 486), so as to render it liable pursuant to any provision of the Labor Law alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, there is no indication that the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs based upon common-law negligence (see, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 582, 644 N.Y.2d 625, 644 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendel-v-hari-services-international-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack