Wilcox v. Paragon Cable T.V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilcox v. Paragon Cable T.V.

241 A.D.2d 914, 661 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7844

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 914 (Wilcox v. Paragon Cable T.V.) 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

Wilcox v. Paragon Cable T.V., 241 A.D.2d 914, 661 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a City of Jamestown (City) utility pole to which he had been installing a television cable line. Defendant Paragon Cable T.V. (Paragon) was successor in interest to the holder of a license granted by the City permitting the installation of a cable line and attachments to the pole. Paragon hired plaintiff’s employer to install the cable line and attachments. Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The record establishes that Paragon is an “owner” under Labor Law § 240 (1). Paragon contracted to have the installation work performed for its benefit and had the power to enforce safety standards and to choose responsible contractors (see, Clute v Ellis Hosp., [915]*915184 AD2d 942, 944; see also, Lynch v City of New York, 209 AD2d 590, 591; cf., Dedario v New York Tel. Co., 162 AD2d 1001).

The court should have granted in part Paragon’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6), § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. With respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, plaintiff failed to allege a violation of a specific regulation (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505). With respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, the record establishes that Paragon did not exercise supervision or control over the work of plaintiff or his employer and that the dangerous condition arose from the methods of plaintiffs employer (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a City of Jamestown (City) utility pole to which he had been installing a television cable line. Defendant Paragon Cable T.V. (Paragon) was successor in interest to the holder of a license granted by the City permitting the installation of a cable line and attachments to the pole. Paragon hired plaintiff’s employer to install the cable line and attachments. Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The record establishes that Paragon is an “owner” under Labor Law § 240 (1). Paragon contracted to have the installation work performed for its benefit and had the power to enforce safety standards and to choose responsible contractors (see, Clute v Ellis Hosp., [915]*915184 AD2d 942, 944; see also, Lynch v City of New York, 209 AD2d 590, 591; cf., Dedario v New York Tel. Co., 162 AD2d 1001).

The court should have granted in part Paragon’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6), § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. With respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, plaintiff failed to allege a violation of a specific regulation (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505). With respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, the record establishes that Paragon did not exercise supervision or control over the work of plaintiff or his employer and that the dangerous condition arose from the methods of plaintiffs employer (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 914, 661 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilcox-v-paragon-cable-tv-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack