Celestine v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 18 January 1982 |
| Parties | Milton Ignatius CELESTINE et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents; Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., Defendants; Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant. (and other titles) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
McHugh, Leonard & O'Conor, New York City (Robert P. Whelan and James M. Leonard, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
A. Paul Goldblum, Brooklyn, for respondent LIMA, a Division of Clark Equipment Co. Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Larry A. Sonnenshein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent City of New York.
R. K. Bernard, Brooklyn (John A. Murray, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent New York City Transit Authority.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and LAZER, COHALAN and THOMPSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Long Island Rail Road Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 3, 1981, as denied that branch of its motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' second cause of action.
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent LIMA.
Defendant Long Island Rail Road Company (LIRR) contends that it should not be deemed an owner for purposes of subdivision 6 of section 241 of the Labor Law, because the property upon which the incident occurred was the subject of an easement granted by it to codefendants City of New York and New York City Transit Authority.
We disagree. As the grantor of an easement, the LIRR still remained the owner of the fee (see Streuber v. Meacham & Sons, 163 App.Div. 574, 148 N.Y.S. 983). Subdivision 6 of section 241 of the Labor Law, as it existed when this accident occurred (L.1969, ch. 1108), made no distinctions based on encumbrances of any sort on ownership. The subdivision provided, in relevant part:
"All contractors and owners and their agents, when constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith, shall comply with the following requirements
* * *
* * *
. (Emphasis added.)
The purpose of the 1969 amendment to section 241 of the Labor Law was to impose a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lincho v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 559-60, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912 (1993) (same); Celestine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 592, 593, 446 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 1982) (grantor of easement liable as statutory owner). Here, of course, Amtrak granted to no property interest t......
-
Kahn v. Gates Const. Corp.
...to the case at bar. This court has held that the statute is to be applied liberally in its scope of coverage (see Celestine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 592, 446 N.Y.S.2d 131, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 938, 466 N.Y.S.2d 319, 453 N.E.2d 548 on opn. at the App.Div.). In Celestine v. City of New York ......
-
Kalofonos v. State
...Atlas Transit Mix Co., 104 A.D.2d 591, 479 N.Y.S.2d 376 Copertino v. Ward, 100 A.D.2d 565, 473 N.Y.S.2d 494; Celestine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 592, 593, 446 N.Y.S.2d 131, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 938, 466 N.Y.S.2d 319, 453 N.E.2d 548; Page v. State of New York, 73 A.D.2d 479, 426 N.Y.S.2d 594......
-
Pouso v. City of New York
...150 A.D.2d 356, 540 N.Y.S.2d 877, Kerr v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 113 A.D.2d 412, 496 N.Y.S.2d 880, and Celestine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 592, 446 N.Y.S.2d 131, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 938, 466 N.Y.S.2d 319, 453 N.E.2d 548--are distinguishable from the instant case and do not support a ......