Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Advocates
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
Advocates

ROMAN ORTIZ, Appellant, v. WILLIAM F. UHL et al., Indi

MEMORANDUM. The court affirms on the authority of Bidetto v. New York City Housing Auth. ( 25 N.Y.2d 848). No basis establishing a duty of care by the defendants herein has been shown. Neither the Power Authority nor Uhl, Hall Rich furnished Merritt with any tools, equipment or employees, or made any determination as to the methods by which the contractor should perform the required work. As in Bidetto, if there was negligence, it was that of plaintiff's employer in the methods chosen to perform the contract work. The accident did not occur in a commonly used portion of the premises under the control of either defendant, and, therefore, no duty of care was created under the safe place to work doctrine. Nor does section 241 of the Labor Law, which is not applicable under the present facts, or the contract between the Power Authority and defendant Uhl, operate to create a duty of care owned by either of these defendants toward the plaintiff.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, RABIN and STEVENS concur in memorandum; Judge GABRIELLI taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ORTIZ v. UHL
(Feb 14, 1974)