Perrino v. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC
| Decision Date | 05 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2674. |
| Citation | 48 A.D.3d 229,2008 NY Slip Op 01016,850 N.Y.S.2d 428 |
| Parties | ANTHONY PERRINO, Respondent, v. ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 3, LLC, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction workers with a safe work site (Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]). "An implicit precondition to this duty ... is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition" (Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317 [1981]).
The record here was replete with evidence indicating that defendants played a significant role in designating the locations where plaintiff could lay down equipment from the crane he operated, oversaw the cordoning off of dangerous areas with yellow caution tape, and employed coordinators to regularly walk the job site to inspect for safety issues and to take corrective measures. Since plaintiff was injured by tripping over a valve he alleged was not properly cordoned off, there is at least a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had "the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury."
In light of the frequent inspection of the work site by defendants' employees during each shift, there is also a triable issue of fact as to defendants' notice of the dangerous condition.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cappabianca v. Skanska U.S. Bldg. Inc.
...common-law duty of care to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work ( Perrino v. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, 48 A.D.3d 229, 230, 850 N.Y.S.2d 428 [2008] ). Claims for personal injury under the statute and the common law fall into two broad categories: those arisi......
-
Landron v. Wil-Cor Realty Co.
...as to Tully's authority to control the activity that brought about plaintiff's injury (see Perrino v. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, 48 A.D.3d 229, 230, 850 N.Y.S.2d 428 [1st Dept. 2008] ). Plaintiff testified that Tully directed him in how to proceed at the facility and mandated that......
-
Hammer v. ACC Constr. Corp.
...v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343, 352–353, 670 N.Y.S.2d 816, 693 N.E.2d 1068 [1998] ; Perrino v. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, 48 A.D.3d 229, 850 N.Y.S.2d 428 [1st Dept. 2008] ). There is evidence that ACC's construction superintendent coordinated the work areas, which includ......
-
Torres v. Love Lane Mews, LLC
...v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343, 352, 670 N.Y.S.2d 816, 693 N.E.2d 1068 [1998] ; Perrino v Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, 48 A.D.3d 229, 230, 850 N.Y.S.2d 428 [1st Dept. 2008] ).The motion court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on an alleged violati......