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

WILLIAM SULLIVAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-respondents, v. MAIN LINE ELECTRIC COMPANY, appellant, ET AL., defendant-respondent.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the complaint against the remaining defendant is severed.

The injured plaintiff alleges that the grating which constituted the first floor of a "pool house" located at Montauk Downs State Park caved in, causing him to fall to the basement, or "pit," below, where the pumps servicing the nearby pool were located. The plaintiffs commenced this action, based on alleged negligence in the installation of the grating.

The defendant Main Line Electric Company (hereinafter Main Line) moved for summary judgment supported by proof that it had nothing to do with the installation of the grating. The plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to contradict this prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. There was also no proof that Main Line in any way supervised the work of the codefendant Norberto and Sons, Inc., which, according to the uncontradicted evidence, did install the grating. Under these circumstances, summary judgment in favor of Main Line should have been granted (see Putnam v. Karaco Indus. Corp., 253 A.D.2d 457; Lillis v. City of New York 226 A.D.2d 592; Rojas v. County of Nassau 210 A.D.2d 390).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SULLIVAN v. MAIN LINE ELECTRIC CO
(Jun 18, 2002)