Van Salisbury v. Elliott-Lewis
| Decision Date | 14 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-05055 |
| Citation | 55 A.D.3d 725,2008 NY Slip Op 07907,867 N.Y.S.2d 454 |
| Parties | ARTHUR VAN SALISBURY, SR., et al., Respondents, v. ELLIOTT-LEWIS, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On January 2, 2003 the plaintiff Arthur Van Salisbury, Sr. (hereinafter the plaintiff), an operating engineer for Macy's East, Inc. (hereinafter Macy's), allegedly was injured when he tripped and fell on a pile of electrical cables blocking access to a supply shelf in the basement of Macy's Department Store at the Roosevelt Field Mall in Garden City. The electrical cables had been used during repair work performed for Macy's by, among others, Elliott-Lewis, the general contractor for the repair project. The plaintiff and his wife commenced the instant action against Elliot-Lewis, among others, to recover damages based upon violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied that branch of Elliot-Lewis's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against it. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.
"Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty of an owner or contractor to provide employees with a safe place to work" (Lane v Fratello Constr. Co., 52 AD3d 575, 576 [2008]; see Nasuro v PI Assoc., LLC, 49 AD3d 829, 831 [2008]). "Where a . . . plaintiff's injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed, but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, a general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition" (Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Educ., 40 AD3d 706, 708 [2007]; see Azad v 270 5th Realty Corp., 46 AD3d 728, 730-731 [2007]).
Here, the alleged injuries sustained by the plaintiff stem from the placement of a pile of cables, an allegedly dangerous condition on the premises. Elliot-Lewis failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked control over the condition of the work site (see Lane v Fratello Constr. Co., 52 AD3d at 576; Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Educ., 40 AD3d at 709), and further failed to establish, prima facie, that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition (cf. Ragone v Spring Scaffolding, Inc., 46 AD3d 652, 655 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. 122 E. 42 St. LLC
...at 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;Aguilera v. Pistilli Constr. & Dev. Corp., 63 AD3d at 764–765;Van Salisbury v. Elliott–Lewis, 55 A.D.3d 725, 726, 867 N.Y.S.2d 454 [2nd Dept.2008]; Mikhaylo v. Chechelnitskiy, 45 A.D.3d at 822, 847 N.Y.S.2d 204). The branch of the motion seeking to d......
-
Martinez v. City of N.Y.
...constructive notice of it ( see Bridges v. Wyandanch Community Dev. Corp., 66 A.D.3d at 940, 888 N.Y.S.2d 142; Van Salisbury v. Elliott–Lewis, 55 A.D.3d 725, 726, 867 N.Y.S.2d 454; Keating v. Nanuet Bd. of Educ., 40 A.D.3d 706, 708, 835 N.Y.S.2d 705; Kerins v. Vassar Coll., 15 A.D.3d at 625......
-
Delishi v. Prop. Owner (usa) Llc
...which caused the plaintiff's injury” ( see id.), “control over the condition of the work site” ( see Salisbury v. Elliott–Lewis, 55 A.D.3d 725, 726, 867 N.Y.S.2d 454 [2d Dept. 2008] ); and “control over the site where the injury occurred” ( see Kerins v. Vassar College, 15 A.D.3d 623, 625, ......
-
McLean v. 405 Webster Ave. Assocs.
...A.D.3d 701, 701–702, 893 N.Y.S.2d 225;Urban v. No. 5 Times Sq. Dev., LLC, 62 A.D.3d 553, 556, 879 N.Y.S.2d 122;Van Salisbury v. Elliott–Lewis, 55 A.D.3d 725, 726, 867 N.Y.S.2d 454). Constructive notice may be imputed to the general contractor if the dangerous condition is visible and appare......