Mas v. Kohen

• Decision Date: 02 May 2001
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) Wladyslaw Mas, a/k/a Jacek Wozowicz, appellant, v. Andrew Kohen, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents; Wonder Works Construction Corp., third-party defendant-respondent. 2000-05157 : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Submitted -
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 90

725 N.Y.S.2d 90 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

Wladyslaw Mas, a/k/a Jacek Wozowicz, appellant, v. Andrew Kohen, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents;

Wonder Works Construction Corp., third-party defendant-respondent.

2000-05157

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Submitted - May 2, 2001

May 29, 2001

Denis C. Guerin, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen N. McCarthy of counsel), for appellant.

Caulfield Law Office (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Marie R. Hodukavich] of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents.

Peltz & Walker, New York, N.Y. (Sharon Elmaleh of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated April 25, 2000, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendants and the separate motion of the third-party defendant which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff, a carpenter employed by the third-party defendant, allegedly was injured while working on a project to renovate a Brooklyn office building. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff was unloading a delivery of metal doors onto a dolly and bringing them into the building. On the plaintiff's sixth trip into the building with a load of doors, one of the wheels of the dolly became lodged in a hole in the floor. The dolly tilted and the doors slid off, hitting the plaintiff in his leg. The plaintiff was aware that holes had been dug in the floor by electricians and plumbers engaged in the project, and he had managed to maneuver around the holes on his prior trips. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, who were the owners of the building, to recover damages for his alleged injuries.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the motion of the defendants and the separate motion of the third-party defendant which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence. We disagree. Labor Law §200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide a safe workplace (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d...