Dalanna v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 25 September 2003 |
| Citation | 308 A.D.2d 400,764 N.Y.S.2d 429 |
| Parties | DARRELL DALANNA et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff, a plumber, was directed to install pipes on a tank and was injured when he tripped over a protruding bolt while carrying a pipe across an outdoor 50-foot-long concrete slab. The IAS court correctly dismissed plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 200 on the ground that defendants had no supervisory control over this injury-producing work (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505 [1993]). There is no evidence that defendant general contractor gave anything more than general instructions on what needed to be done, not how to do it, and monitoring and oversight of the timing and quality of the work is not enough to impose liability under section 200 (see Gonzalez v United Parcel Serv., 249 AD2d 210, 210-211 [1998]). Nor is a general duty to ensure compliance with safety regulations or the authority to stop work for safety reasons (see Buccini v 1568 Broadway Assoc., 250 AD2d 466, 468-469 [1998]).
We reject plaintiff's argument that a showing of supervisory control is not necessary since the accident was caused not by a contractor's methods but by a defect in the premises itself of which defendants had constructive notice. The record shows that the bolt was one of many that had been put down to temporarily anchor the tank to the concrete slab prior to its installation, and that when the tank was taken off the slab several months prior to the accident, plaintiff's employer was instructed to cut down the protruding bolts so they would be level with the surrounding surface, but it apparently missed the one on which plaintiff tripped. Thus, the protruding bolt was not a defect inherent in the property, but rather was created by the manner in which plaintiff's employer performed its work. Accordingly, defendants cannot be held liable under section 200 even if they had constructive notice of the protruding bolt (see Wright v Belt Assoc., 14 NY2d 129, 134 [1964]; McParland v Travelers Ins. Co., 302 AD2d 328 [2003]).
Nor can plaintiff recover under section 241 (6). The slab, although regularly traversed to bring pipes to the tanks, remained a common, open area between the job site and the street, and thus was not "passageway" covered by 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1), and at best was a "working area" covered by 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albericci v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
...(Comes, at 877, 609 N.Y.S.2d 168, 631 N.E.2d 110 ; Allen, at 299, 405 N.Y.S.2d 630, 376 N.E.2d 1276 ; Dalanna v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 400, 400, 764 N.Y.S.2d 429 [1st Dept.2003] ), liability can also arise when the accident is caused by a dangerous condition at the worksite that was ......
-
Mendoza v. Highpoint Associates
...of the work in connection to the roof repair, it was not left there as a result of the “work performed” ( see Dalanna v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 400, 764 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2003] [plaintiff, who tripped over a protruding bolt while carrying a pipe across an outdoor 50–foot–long concrete sla......
-
Cappabianca v. Skanska U.S. Bldg. Inc.
...work ( Foley v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 84 A.D.3d 476, 477, 923 N.Y.S.2d 57 [2011];Dalanna v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 400, 764 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2003] ). Here, all of the contributing causes of the accident directly arose from the manner and means in which Cappabianca was pe......
-
Enriquez v. B&D Development, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 32287(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/21/2008), 0008019/2006
...and oversight of the timing and quality of the work is not enough to impose liability under section 200' (Dalanna v. City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 400, 764 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2003])." Carty v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 32 A.D.3d 732 (1st Dept. 2006). "[F]or liability to be impose......