AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

FREDERICK JENKINS, Respondent, v. WALTER REALTY, INC., et al., Appellants.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Walter Realty, Inc., is granted.

The plaintiff, a worker at a plastics manufacturing company, allegedly injured his finger while operating a plastics shaper without using a properly placed safety guard. He commenced this action against, among others, Walter Realty, Inc. (hereinafter Walter Realty), the owner of the property in which the manufacturing plant was located. The complaint alleges that Walter Realty had notice of the fact that the shaper, which was owned by a third party and leased to the manufacturing company, was being used improperly on the premises. The complaint alleges causes of action sounding in common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 470.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Walter Realty. With respect to the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action, Walter Realty made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was injured, not by a dangerous condition, but by the methods or materials of his work, and that it did not have the authority to supervise or control the performance of his work ( see Comes v New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877; Rakowicz v Fashion Inst., of Tech., 56 AD3d 747, 748; Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54, 61-62; cf. Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 352). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). With respect to the Labor Law § 470 claim, inasmuch as this action does not involve a "[p]lace of public assembly," that provision is inapplicable ( see Labor Law § 2).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JENKINS v. WALTER REALTY, INC
(Mar 23, 2010)