Robinson v. County of Nassau
| Decision Date | 10 May 2011 |
| Parties | Robert ROBINSON, appellant,v.COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
84 A.D.3d 919
923 N.Y.S.2d 135
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04030
Robert ROBINSON, appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 10, 2011.
[923 N.Y.S.2d 136]
The Cochran Firm, New York, N.Y. (Paul A. Marber, Gerard A. Lucciola, and Joseph S. Rosato of counsel), for appellant.Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for respondents.PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
[84 A.D.3d 920] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated January 25, 2010, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion
[923 N.Y.S.2d 137]
which was for summary judgment dismissing his causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff's accident arose from the means and methods of his work, that the plaintiff's work was directed and controlled exclusively by his employer, and that they had no authority to exercise supervisory control over his work ( see Comes v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877, 609 N.Y.S.2d 168, 631 N.E.2d 110; Pilato v. 866 U.N. Plaza Assoc., LLC, 77 A.D.3d 644, 646, 909 N.Y.S.2d 80; Enriquez v. B & D Dev., Inc., 63 A.D.3d 780, 781, 880 N.Y.S.2d 701; Cambizaca v. New York City Tr. Auth., 57 A.D.3d 701, 702, 871 N.Y.S.2d 220; Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54, 61–62, 866 N.Y.S.2d 323; Peay v. New York City School Constr. Auth., 35 A.D.3d 566, 567, 827 N.Y.S.2d 189). In opposition to that branch of the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Quilliams v. Half Hollow Hills School Dist. [ Candlewood School], 67 A.D.3d 763, 892 N.Y.S.2d 397; Enriquez v. B & D Dev., Inc., 63 A.D.3d at 781, 880 N.Y.S.2d 701; Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d at 63, 866 N.Y.S.2d 323). In this regard, we note that “[t]he retention of the right to generally supervise the work, to stop the contractor's work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations, does not amount to the [authority to] supervise and control ... necessary to impose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Opalinski v. City of N.Y.
...949 N.Y.S.2d 699;see Schwind v. Mel Lany Constr. Mgt. Corp., 95 A.D.3d 1196, 1198, 945 N.Y.S.2d 151;Robinson v. County of Nassau, 84 A.D.3d 919, 920, 923 N.Y.S.2d 135;Cambizaca v. New York City Tr. Auth., 57 A.D.3d 701, 702, 871 N.Y.S.2d 220). The deposition testimony submitted by the plain......
-
Tyczynski v. 973 Fifth, LLC
...of the case, or that the allegedPage 10 violation was not a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. See Robinson v. Cty. of Nassau, 84 A.D.3d 919, 920, 923 N.Y.S.2d 135, 137 [2nd Dept, 2011]. In support of its application, Defendant Beech relies primarily on the deposition of the Plain......
-
Scott v. Westmore Fuel Co.
...). However, 12 NYCRR § 23–9.4(a) is too general to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim [96 A.D.3d 521]( see Robinson v. County of Nassau, 84 A.D.3d 919, 921, 923 N.Y.S.2d 135 [2011];Brechue v. Town of Wheatfield, 241 A.D.2d 935, 935, 661 N.Y.S.2d 334 [1997],lv. denied94 N.Y.2d 759, 705 N.Y.S......
-
Tarantul v. Cherkassky
...three counterclaims, and the Supreme Court granted those branches of the sellers' motion. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from. [923 N.Y.S.2d 135] Contrary to the buyers' contention, the contract of sale is unambiguous in that it does not call for the sale of a newly constructed hom......