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

ANGELO BASILE et al., Appellants, v. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS CORP. et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. CHARLES SHUTRUMP SONS CO., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint seeking damages for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6). Angelo Basile (plaintiff) slipped on a stack of pipes and fell onto the pipes. Thus, he did not fall from an elevated work site ( see, Mitchell v. County of Jefferson, 226 A.D.2d 1109; Cipolla v. Flickinger Co., 172 A.D.2d 1064, 1065), and the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1) ( see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501; Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514).

To establish a prima facie cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), plaintiff was required to show that defendants, as nonsupervising owners or contractors, violated a specific rule or regulation of the Commissioner of Labor "mandating compliance with concrete specifications" ( Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 505). He failed to meet that burden. Industrial Code (12 N.Y.CRR) § 23-1.5 states a general standard of care and does not support a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation ( McGrath v. Lake Tree Vil. Assocs., 216 A.D.2d 877; see also, Dombrowski v Schwartz, 217 A.D.2d 914). The pipes had been delivered and stacked in a staging area in order to be cleaned. The stack of pipes did not constitute a passageway or elevated work area, and thus 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) does not apply ( see, McGrath v. Lake Tree Vil. Assocs., supra; Stairs v. State St. Assocs., 206 A.D.2d 817, 818). Moreover, the slippery substance was an integral part of the pipes ( see, Adams v. Glass Fab, 212 A.D.2d 972, 973). The remaining sections of the Industrial Code relied upon by plaintiff ( 12 NYCRR 23-3.3, 23-5.1, 23-9.8) also do not apply to this case.

Lastly, the proof establishes that defendants exercised no supervisory control over plaintiff's work. Thus, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action ( see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BASILE v. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS CORP
(May 31, 1996)