Wood v. Nourse
| Citation | 124 A.D.2d 1020,509 N.Y.S.2d 223 |
| Parties | Keith R. WOOD and Patricia Wood, Respondents, v. Harrison J. NOURSE, Defendants, and Oatka Valley Construction Company, Inc., Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1986 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Quinn & McGarry, P.C., Buffalo, by Kenneth Patricia, for appellant.
Cyril A. Krenzer, P.C., Pittsford by Cyril Krenzer, for respondents.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and DENMAN, PINE, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.
Defendant, Oatka Valley Construction Company, Inc. (Oatka), moved for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while working on a construction site. The complaint alleges causes of action based on claimed violations of sections 200 and 241 of the Labor Law and common law negligence. In support of its motion, Oatka submitted proof in evidentiary form which established that the owner, a codefendant, had hired separate prime contractors to remodel his restaurant; that no contract existed between Oatka and plaintiff's employer; that neither Oatka nor any of its employees had any right to, or did in fact, exercise any supervision or control over plaintiff or his employer; that neither Oatka nor any of its employees controlled or supervised the use of any ladders, boards, wood or other tools used by plaintiff or his employer; and that all wood on the job site was provided by the owner.
Although plaintiff as the party opposing the motion is entitled to a presumption of favorable inferences from the facts presented (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718), he must present evidentiary facts to create issues requiring trial on the facts established by Oatka (Burton v. Ertell, 107 A.D.2d 909, 483 N.Y.S.2d 854). There is no dispute that Oatka was an independent prime contractor (see, Russin v. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 445 N.Y.S.2d 127, 429 N.E.2d 805) and that each contractor on the project was hired separately. While plaintiff disputes Oatka's contentions that it did not own, control or provide the lumber upon which the plaintiff tripped, no evidentiary facts in admissible form were presented by plaintiff. The contentions of plaintiff and his attorney, made only upon information and belief, that the lumber was residue of work performed by Oatka does not suffice as proof in evidentiary form to create a question of fact requiring trial (Onondaga Soil Testing, Inc. v. Barton, Brown,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Currie v. Wilhouski
...belief” of the attorney adds nothing ( see Henriquez v. Purins, 245 A.D.2d 337, 338, 666 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2d Dept.1997]; Wood v. Nourse, 124 A.D.2d 1020, 1021, 509 N.Y.S.2d 223 [4th Dept.1986] ), even when based upon the attorney's review of the client's file ( see Park Health Center v. Green ......
-
DaSilva v. Jantron Industries, Inc.
......Page 372. v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 146 A.D.2d 129, 539 N.Y.S.2d 889; Wood v. Nourse, 124 A.D.2d 1020, 509 N.Y.S.2d 223; Nowak v. Smith & Mahoney, 110 A.D.2d 288, 494 N.Y.S.2d 449). As the masonry ......
-
King's Court Rest. Inc. v. Hurondel I Inc.
...than personal knowledge ( see Anderson v. Livonia, Avon & Lakeville R.R. Corp., 300 A.D.2d 1134, 1135, 752 N.Y.S.2d 763; Wood v. Nourse, 124 A.D.2d 1020, 1021, 509 N.Y.S.2d 223). Because defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's adverse possession a......
-
Paszko v. Roman Catholic Church of St. Ignatius Loyola
...a question of fact to preclude summary judgment." lockwood v. Layton, 79 A.D.3d 1342, 1344 (3d Dep't 2010). See also Wood v. Nourse, 124 A.D.2d 1020, 1021 (4th Dep't 1986) ("The contentions of plaintiff and his attorney, made only upon information and belief . . . do not suffice as proof in......