FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com
Attorney in New York Peter Agulnick - Litigation Lawyer free consultation
 
picture: law books and a gavel

PETER M. AGULNICK, P.C., LAW OFFICES
321 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10007-1111
Tel. 212-571-2266 · Fax 212-656-1645
info@Agulnicklaw.com

| Home | Practice Areas | Our Successful Cases | Articles | Free Consultation | Contact Us |

[Cite as:  261 A.D.2d 180, 690 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1st Dep't 1999).] 

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. 

Andrzej BACZYK, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, 
v. 
PARK 25TH ASSOCIATES, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. 
Park 25th Associates, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
v. 
United National Environmental Services Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant- 
Respondent. 

[And A Second Third-Party Action] 

May 11, 1999.

Robin Mary Heaney, for Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. 

Danielle M. Regan, for Defendants-Appellants-Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Peter M. Agulnick, for Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. 

SULLIVAN, J.P., WILLIAMS, WALLACH, RUBIN and MAZZARELLI, JJ. 
 

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

     Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered September 12, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, but denied defendants' motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 200and common-law claims;denied that branch of defendant/third-party plaintiffs' summary judgment motion for a conditional judgment against the third-party defendant based on contractual and common law indemnity;and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment upon his Labor Law § 240(1) and 241(6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs. 

     Because the record raises factual issues as to whether negligence by defendants caused plaintiff's accident, the motion court properly denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The same issues also warranted the denial of defendants' motion for an award of conditional judgment against the third-party defendant on contractual and common-law indemnity theories (see, Smith v. Cassadaga Valley Cen. School Dist., 178 A.D.2d 955, 578 N.Y.S.2d 747; see also, City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 198 A.D.2d 31, 603 N.Y.S.2d 47, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 757, 615 N.Y.S.2d 874, 639 N.E.2d 415).

     Also proper was the motion court's dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) and 241(6) claims, since the injuries sustained by plaintiff did not result from either a gravity-related risk within the contemplation of Labor Law Section 240(1) or a code violation within the contemplation of Labor Law Section 241(6) (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82; Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932; Dias v. Stahl, 256 A.D.2d 235, 682 N.Y.S.2d 383).




| Home | Practice Areas | Our Successful Cases | Articles | Free Consultation | Contact Us |



© 2004 Peter M. Agulnick, P.C.
The entire contents of this website, other than government-owed materials
 and materials indicated otherwise, are the legal property
of Peter M. Agulnick, P.C., and may not be reproduced without written permission.
___
Peter M. Agulnick, P.C. / 321 Broadway, 2nd Floor / New York, NY 10007-1111 / U.S.A.
Tel. 212-571-2266
Fax 212-656-1645