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

PHILIP GARLAND et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. ZELASKO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant-Respondent, and SHERWOOD STOLL CONSTRUCTION CORP., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. PINE HILL CONCRETE MIX CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Sherwood for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, but erred in denying the motion of Zelasko for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it. The cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) should have been dismissed against both defendants. 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) has no application to the facts of this case because the accident did not occur on a "floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface" ( see, Ramski v. Zappia Enters., 229 A.D.2d 990; Stairs v. State St. Assocs., 206 A.D.2d 817, 818).

The cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 also should have been dismissed against both defendants because neither defendant exercised the requisite degree of supervision or control over plaintiff's work ( see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877). Consequently, the order is modified by granting the motion of Zelasko for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Summary Judgment.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GARLAND v. ZELASKO CONSTRUCTION, INC
(Jul 3, 1997)