Bellere v. Gerics
| Citation | 759 N.Y.S.2d 105,304 A.D.2d 687 |
| Parties | CAROL BELLERE, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>THERESA GERICS et al., Appellants-Respondents, and<BR>RM GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 April 2003 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Theresa Gerics and Andrew Gerics payable by the plaintiff and the defendant RM General Contracting Corp.
On October 20, 1998, the plaintiff's husband, Bernard Bellere (hereinafter the decedent), sustained fatal injuries after falling from the roof of the three-story dwelling that he and the plaintiff owned in Brooklyn. The defendants Theresa Gerics and Andrew Gerics (hereinafter the Gerics), who are husband and wife, owned an apartment building which abutted the plaintiff's dwelling.
Prior to the decedent's accident, the Gerics retained the defendant RM General Contracting Corp. (hereinafter RM) to demolish and replace the chimney on the roof of their building. The chimney was located on the side of the Gerics' building which abutted the plaintiff's dwelling. However, the roof of the Gerics' building was approximately 10 feet higher than the roof on the plaintiff's dwelling, and the chimney positioned on the side of the Gerics' building faced directly down upon the roof of the plaintiff's dwelling.
The plaintiff commenced this action, alleging, inter alia, that the decedent fell from the roof of the plaintiff's dwelling after slipping and falling upon roofing and construction debris which had fallen on the plaintiff's roof from Gerics' roof. The decedent allegedly went onto the roof to remove the debris.
Contrary to the contention of RM, the Supreme Court properly denied its cross motion for summary judgment. Here, RM acknowledged that it was responsible to prevent debris from falling onto the plaintiff's property, and for removing any debris that may have fallen onto the roof. Further, RM acknowledged that injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of allowing debris to fall from the roof. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly held that under the facts and circumstances of this case, RM owed a duty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. City of Buffalo
...the United States, 79 N.Y.2d 663, 668, 584 N.Y.S.2d 765, 595 N.E.2d 840 (1992) (citations omitted). See also Bellere v. Gerics, 304 A.D.2d 687, 759 N.Y.S.2d 105 (N.Y.App.Div.2003); Maristany v. Patient Support Servs., Inc., 264 A.D.2d 302, 693 N.Y.S.2d 143 (N.Y.App. Div.1999); Zelen v. City......
-
Agostinelli v. City of N.Y.
...C. at 129, 781 N.Y.S.2d 342 ; Gomez v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 374, 374–375, 758 N.Y.S.2d 298 [1st Dept 2003] Bellere v. Gerics, 304 A.D.2d 687, 688, 759 N.Y.S.2d 105 [2d Dept 2003] ). With respect to negligent hiring, there is no common-law duty to institute specific hiring procedures......
-
Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC
...contractor's negligence under theories of negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision." Bellere v. Gerics, 304 A.D.2d 687, 688, 759 N.Y.S.2d 105 (2d Dep't 2003)."To hold a party liable under theories of negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision, a......
-
Weinfeld v. HR Photography, Inc.
...that the party knew or should have known of the contractor's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury" (Bellere v. Gerics, 304 A.D.2d 687, 688, 759 N.Y.S.2d 105 ; see Schiffer v. Sunrise Removal, Inc., 62 A.D.3d 776, 779, 879 N.Y.S.2d 518 ). HR demonstrated, prima facie, that it d......