Owusu v. Hearst Communications, Inc.
Decision Date | 10 June 2008 |
Docket Number | 2972. |
Parties | JOEL OWUSU, Respondent, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendants' liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) should have been denied, because there is a triable issue of fact whether the "ship ladder" from which plaintiff fell was a device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) or "a permanent staircase not designed as a safety device to afford protection from an elevation-related risk and therefore outside the coverage of the statute" (Griffin v New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 202, 203 [2005]).
The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should have been dismissed as against Hearst, because there was no evidence that it had actual knowledge that a tread was missing from the ship ladder and no evidence of the length of time the tread was missing, as is required for a finding of constructive notice (see Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y., 17 AD3d 252, 255 [2005]). However, plaintiff's deposition testimony about a radio transmission that he overheard shows that Turner had actual knowledge of the missing step.
All plaintiff's claims should have been dismissed as against Fresh Meadow, because it neither controlled nor supervised plaintiff, who worked for a different subcontractor (see Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311 [1981]). The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should also have been dismissed as against Fresh Meadow because plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vocson v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., Silverstein Props., Inc.
...v. New York City Transit Autk, 16 A.D.3d 202, 203, 791 N.Y.S.2d 98, 99 (1st Dep't 2005); see also Owusu v. Hearst Communications, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 285, 860 N.Y.S.2d 38 (1st Dep't 2008), but submitted no admissible evidence tending to establish this, see Zuckerman v. New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, ......
- Falkenberg v. Racanelli Constr. Co.
-
Montesinos v. Daly, 2009 NY Slip Op 30782(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 4/2/2009)
...as a matter of law based on undisputed material facts, in directing judgment in its favor. CPLR 3212(b); see Owusu v. Hearst Communications, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 285 (1st Dept. 2008) (summary judgment denied for plaintiff on Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and granted for defendant on negligence claim......
-
Ventura v. Ozone Park Holding Corp..
...the ladder, nor is there any allegation that 3 Kings directed or controlled plaintiff's work ( see Owusu v. Hearst Communications, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 285, 286, 860 N.Y.S.2d 38 [2008]; Ramos v. HSBC Bank, 29 A.D.3d 435, 436, 815 N.Y.S.2d 504 [2006] ). Further, even assuming that 3 Kings gave th......