Dunham v. Hilco Const. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1995 |
| Citation | 221 A.D.2d 586,634 N.Y.S.2d 208 |
| Parties | James DUNHAM, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HILCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, Marc Beige, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Ira S. Salk Construction Corporation, Defendant Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, Louis Calhoun, First and Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thurm & Heller, New York City (Barry Jacobs, of counsel), for defendant second third-party plaintiff-appellant.
Gilroy, Downes, Horowitz & Goldstein, New York City (Raymond C. Green, Michael Horowitz, and Michael Goldstein, of counsel), for first and second third-party defendant-appellant.
Steven Wildstein, Great Neck (Brian Kennedy, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Fiedelman & Hoefling, Jericho (Andrew Zajac, of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and JOY, FRIEDMANN and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant second third-party plaintiff Ira S. Salk Construction Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated March 4, 1994, as, upon, in effect, granting reargument, adhered to so much of a prior determination as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's causes of action based on Labor Law § 241(6), and the plaintiff's cause of action based on common law negligence, and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars, and Louis Calhoun the first and second third-party defendant separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as, upon, in effect, granting reargument, adhered to the prior determination denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the first and second third-party complaints.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the motions for summary judgment are granted, the plaintiff's cross motion to serve an amended bill of particulars is denied, and, upon searching the record, the complaint and first and second third-party complaints are dismissed in their entirety; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs payable by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, an employee of the third-party defendant Louis Calhoun (hereinafter Calhoun), was injured while working at a construction site owned by the defendants Marc, Howard, Joel, and Maxine Beige (hereinafter the Beiges), while he and an employee of another subcontractor, Hilco Construction Company, Inc. (hereinafter Hilco), were carrying a 15-foot steel "reinforcement bar" weighing some 16 to 18 pounds. The plaintiff commenced an action against Hilco, the Beiges, and the general contractor, Ira S. Salk Construction Corporation (hereinafter Salk), for common law negligence and for violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6). Salk and Hilco commenced third-party actions against the plaintiff's employer, Calhoun. The plaintiff subsequently conceded that he had no causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200 and 240.
All the defendants except Hilco moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and Calhoun moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints. After their motions were denied, Salk moved to "renew" and Calhoun moved to "renew and reargue" their motions. These new motions were really applications for reargument, because they were not based upon any additional material facts, and, in the case of the challenge to the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, were grounded upon a change in the law as stated by the Court of Appeals in Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82 (see, e.g., Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 N.Y.2d 568, 285 N.Y.S.2d 610, 232 N.E.2d 642; Savory v. Romex Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 601, 599 N.Y.S.2d 997). Ordinarily no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Savory v. Romex Realty Corp., supra). However, where, as here, the court denies the motion to reargue but addresses the merits of the motion, and then adheres...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wensley v. Argonox Const. Corp.
...(see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 505, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82; see also, Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 221 A.D.2d 586, 587, 634 N.Y.S.2d 208, 209). In the instant case, plaintiff has not appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of his common-law negligence cause o......
-
McDonald v. City of New York
...is "merely a codification of * * * [the] common-law duty to provide workers with a safe place to work" (dunham v. hilcO constr. co., 221 A.D.2d 586, 587, 634 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2d dept.1995] ). The plaintiff's cause of action based on Labor Law § 200 should be treated in a manner consistent with......
-
Dunham v. Hilco Const. Co., Inc.
...to work * * * the plaintiff's common-law negligence cause of action as against all the defendants should * * * be dismissed" (221 A.D.2d 586, 587, 634 N.Y.S.2d 208). Plaintiff contends that the Appellate Division erred in dismissing his common-law negligence claim against Hilco. He urges th......
-
State v. Gruzen Partnership
...addresses the merits of the motion, and then adheres to its original determination, the order is appealable" (Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 221 A.D.2d 586, 587, 634 N.Y.S.2d 208, revd. in part on other grounds 89 N.Y.2d 425, 654 N.Y.S.2d 335, 676 N.E.2d 1178; see, Matter of Sagona v. State F......