DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248 ). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).
The plaintiff Cillia Steel (hereinafter the plaintiff) alleges that in June 1993, while crossing a street in Queens, she fell as a result of a depression in a crosswalk. It is undisputed that in 1987 the defendant Time Warner Operations, Inc. (hereinafter Time Warner) contracted with the defendant Trinity Communications Corporation (hereinafter Trinity) to install subterranean cable in the area where the plaintiff alleged that the accident occurred.
As a general rule, an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the negligent acts of the independent contractor (see, Rosenberg v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 79 N.Y.2d 663, 668 ; Davies v. Contel of New York, Inc., 187 A.D.2d 898 ). Although there are recognized exceptions to this rule, none are pertinent herein. In particular, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, which is raised for the first time on appeal, the laying of underground cable is not "inherently dangerous" work (see, Rosenberg v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., supra). Thus, Time Warner is entitled to summary judgment.
The Supreme Court also properly granted Trinity's separate motion for summary judgment. The record demonstrates that Trinity completed its cable work in the area in 1989, which was more than three years before the plaintiff's accident. Furthermore, subsequent to the completion of Trinity's work, other contractors had performed road work in this same area. Under these circumstances, Trinity established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any material issue of fact with regard thereto (see generally, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 ; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 ).