Whitehead v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 14 December 2010 |
| Citation | 913 N.Y.S.2d 697,79 A.D.3d 858 |
| Parties | Kenneth WHITEHEAD, et al., respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., appellants-respondents; Steelco-Metropolitan Steel Industries, respondent-appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
79 A.D.3d 858
Kenneth WHITEHEAD, et al., respondents,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., appellants-respondents;
Steelco-Metropolitan Steel Industries, respondent-appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 14, 2010.
Goldberg Segalla, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (William T. O'Connell and William G. Kelly of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (David C. Zegarelli of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated September 17, 2009, as denied, as untimely, that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment on the third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification, and (2), from an order of the same court dated October 26, 2009, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and, in effect, denied, as untimely, that branch of their cross motion in which the third-party defendant joined, which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action, and the third-party defendant separately appeals from the order dated October 26, 2009.
ORDERED that the order dated September 17, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated October 26, 2009, is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) is denied, and that branch of the cross motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action is granted.
The injured plaintiff, an ironworker employed by nonparty Midlantic Steel Erectors, allegedly was injured at a construction site when a load of steel tubes that had just been hoisted by a crane and put down on the eighth floor of a structure began to
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. Sligo Constr. Corp.
... 2019 NY Slip Op 34861(U) MIGUEL REYES, Plaintiff, v. SLIGO CONSTRUCTION CORP. and EQUITY TRUST ... McCallister v 200 Park, L.P., 92 A.D.3d 927, 939 ... N.Y.S.2d 538 [2d Dept 2012]; Whitehead v City of ... New York, 79 A.D.3d 858, 913 N.Y.S.2d 697 [2d Dept ... 2010]). However, as ... ...
-
Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP
...852 N.Y.S.2d 273), and rely on arguments which are improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Whitehead v. City of New York, 79 A.D.3d 858, 861, 913 N.Y.S.2d 697; Weber v. Jacobs, 289 A.D.2d 226, 227, 733 N.Y.S.2d 910; Fresh Pond Rd. Assoc. v. Estate of Schacht, 120 A.D.2d 561, 50......
-
Muniz v. Mount Sinai Hosp. of Queens
...89 A.D.3d 1054, 934 N.Y.S.2d 216; Parker v. Raymond Corp., 87 A.D.3d 1115, 1117, 930 N.Y.S.2d 27; Whitehead v. City of New York, 79 A.D.3d 858, 861, 913 N.Y.S.2d 697). MSHQ also did not specifically argue before the Supreme Court that the cause of action to recover punitive damages [91 A.D.......
-
Dennis v. Lakhani
...the Supreme Court and the plaintiff had an opportunity to present evidence to refute this argument ( see Whitehead v. City of New York, 79 A.D.3d 858, 861, 913 N.Y.S.2d 697;Matter of Cohn, 46 A.D.3d 680, 681, 849 N.Y.S.2d 271). [958 N.Y.S.2d 173] Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have g......