AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

JEFFREY B. BRENNAN et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. 3785 SOUTH PARK, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents. 3785 SOUTH PARK, INC., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents,

Supreme Court erred in denying that part of the motion of defendants 3785 South Park, Inc. (South Park), and Ilio DiPaolo, Inc. (DiPaolo), and that part of the cross motion of defendant Kirst Construction, Inc. (Kirst), for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and in granting plaintiffs' cross motion for partial summary judgment on that cause of action against South Park and DiPaolo. Jeffrey B. Brennan (plaintiff), a field technician employed by third-party defendant, New York Telephone Company (New York Telephone), was injured when he fell from a ladder while replacing a temporary transmission line running from New York Telephone's cable to a restaurant owned by DiPaolo. The ladder was situated on a public sidewalk owned by the Village of Blasdell, and it rested against a cable owned by New York Telephone. Because neither DiPaolo nor South Park, the owner of the land occupied by the restaurant, owned the sidewalk or the cable and transmission line being repaired at the time of the accident and neither acted in the capacity of an owner, neither defendant is liable as an owner within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Fuller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 213 A.D.2d 986, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 708; Hauser v. State of New York, 147 A.D.2d 615, 616). Although Kirst was hired to build an addition to the restaurant, the work being performed by plaintiff was not within the scope of the contract between Kirst and DiPaolo, and Kirst had no contractual authority to control the activities. Thus, Kirst is entitled to summary judgment dismissing that cause of action against it (see, Valentin v. Thirty-Four Sq. Corp., 227 A.D.2d 467). We modify the order by granting that part of the motion of South Park and DiPaolo and that part of the cross motion of Kirst for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and by denying plaintiffs' cross motion for partial summary judgment on that cause of action.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BRENNAN v. 3785 SOUTH PARK, INC
(Sep 30, 1997)