Stevens v. Bast Hatfield Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1996
• Citation: 641 N.Y.S.2d 186,226 A.D.2d 981
• Parties: William J. STEVENS, Appellant, v. BAST HATFIELD INC., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 186

641 N.Y.S.2d 186

226 A.D.2d 981

William J. STEVENS, Appellant, v. BAST HATFIELD INC., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

April 18, 1996.

John Scarzafava (Elizabeth E. Little of counsel), Oneonta, for appellant.

Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Napierski & Maloney P.C. (Joseph T. Johnson of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, CASEY, YESAWICH and SPAIN, JJ.

CARDONA, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.), entered June 12, 1995 in Otsego County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In 1987, defendant contracted with the State to construct a Department of Transportation (hereinafter DOT) substation facility in the Village of Schenevus, Otsego County. The Office of General Services (hereinafter OGS) provided defendant with plans and specifications for the project as well as lists of materials to be used. The project was completed in 1988. In January 1992, plaintiff, a highway equipment operator employed by DOT, allegedly slipped and fell while descending a stairway leading from the facility's main floor to its lunchroom. Plaintiff commenced this action claiming that defendant's negligence in, inter alia, constructing the stairway was the cause of his injuries. After discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment and Supreme Court granted the motion. Plaintiff appeals.

Defendant, as a contractor, was bound by ordinary principles of negligence (see, Miccio v. Wade Lupe Constr. Co., 207 A.D.2d 599, 615 N.Y.S.2d 513). It could rely on the plans and specifications it had contracted to follow only as long as they were not so apparently defective that a contractor of ordinary prudence would have been placed on notice that the work was dangerous and likely to cause injury (see, Meseck v. General Elec. Co., 195 A.D.2d 798, 600 N.Y.S.2d 384).

Initially, we agree that defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Its motion papers included a copy of the contract, the specifications for the stairway and a certification by OGS' engineer in charge of the project that it had been completed in accordance with all of the contract documents (see, Loconti v. Creede, 169 A.D.2d 900, 564 N.Y.S.2d 823). The burden, therefore, shifted to plaintiff to come forward with evidentiary proof sufficient to raise triable issues of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra, at 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). We find that plaintiff's submissions were insufficient to defeat defendant's motion. The affidavit of ...