Santos v. American Museum of Natural History
| Decision Date | 02 November 1992 |
| Citation | 187 A.D.2d 420,589 N.Y.S.2d 520 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Jose SANTOS, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, Appellant, Apollon Waterproofing & Restoration Corp., Defendant-Respondent. |
Killarney, Brody & Fabiani, New York, N.Y. (Stephen M. Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Barnett, Westbury, N.Y. (Audrey Einborn of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, LAWRENCE and MILLER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant American Museum of Natural History appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), dated October 4, 1990, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and any cross claims asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs payable by the plaintiff, the appellant's motion is granted, the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and any cross claims against it are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
The decedent Guaquin Garcia died when he fell from a scaffold while employed renovating a building occupied by the American Museum of Natural History (hereinafter the Museum). The plaintiff, as the administrator of Garcia's estate, commenced this action against the Museum, which was the lessee of the building, and Apollon Waterproofing & Restoration Corporation, the general contractor. The City of New York, which owned the building, contracted for the renovations, and supervised the work site, was not a party to the action.
The Museum moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and any cross claims against it, contending that it could not be held liable under the Labor Law, since it neither owned the building, contracted for the renovations, supervised the work site, nor had the authority to supervise the workers. Only the plaintiff opposed the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court determined that an issue of fact existed with respect to whether the Museum had an obligation to maintain, repair, and renovate the building, and denied the Museum's motion.
The Museum was neither a contractor, owner, or agent engaged in the construction, demolition, excavation, repair, alteration, cleaning, painting, or pointing of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
...to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether DHL had authority to control the work site ( see Santos v. American Museum of Natural History, 187 A.D.2d 420, 421–422, 589 N.Y.S.2d 520). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of DHL's motion which was for summary judg......
-
Saaverda v. East Fordham Road Real Estate Corp.
...to exercise any control over the specific work area that gave rise to plaintiff's injuries (see, Santos v. American Museum of Natural History, 187 A.D.2d 420, 589 N.Y.S.2d 520). Similarly, defendant Ambrosio Construction, whose contract with the owner was limited to demolition and construct......
-
Guzman v. L.M.P. Realty Corp.
...for nor supervised the renovation work, had no authority over safety measures at the work site (Santos v. Am. Museum of Natural History, 187 A.D.2d 420, 421-422, 589 N.Y.S.2d 520), nor did it supply any of the safety devices such as the ladder from which plaintiff fell (cf., Glielmi v. Toys......
-
Fuller v. NC3, Inc.
...to control the work (see, Frierson v. Concourse Plaza Assocs., 189 A.D.2d 609, 592 N.Y.S.2d 309; Santos v. American Museum of Natural History, 187 A.D.2d 420, 421-422, 589 N.Y.S.2d 520; Krieger v. PAT Constr., 112 A.D.2d 10, 490 N.Y.S.2d 393). The court properly granted, however, that part ......