From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortiz v. IGBY Huntlaw LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 26, 2017
146 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Summary

In Ortiz, the First Department held that the general contractor defendant was entitled to dismissal, as the plaintiff was injured while painting and the general contractor's contract with the owner "specifically excluded painting" (id. at 683).

Summary of this case from Topoli v. 77 Bleecker St. Corp.

Opinion

01-26-2017

Wilson ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. IGBY HUNTLAW LLC, Defendant, A.E. Greyson & Co., Inc., Defendant–Appellant.

Carol R. Finocchio, New York, for appellant. Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Mark H. Edwards of counsel), for respondents.


Carol R. Finocchio, New York, for appellant.

Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Mark H. Edwards of counsel), for respondents.

ACOSTA, J.P., MAZZARELLI, FEINMAN, WEBBER, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2016, which denied defendant A.E. Greyson & Co., Inc.'s (Greyson) motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff Wilson Ortiz, an employee of nonparty Uriu, LLC, was injured when he fell from a ladder while painting in an apartment owned by defendant Igby Huntlaw LLC, which was dismissed from plaintiffs' action. Greyson was the general contractor, and its contract with Igby specifically excluded painting the apartment. Uriu was hired to do the painting.

Greyson is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Where, as here, a plaintiff's work at the time of his accident is outside the scope of what has been contracted for by the owner and the general contractor, the general contractor has no right to control the work, and therefore cannot be liable under Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6) (Butt v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 47 A.D.3d 338, 340–341, 847 N.Y.S.2d 84 [1st Dept.2007] ). Because Greyson had no authority to control Ortiz's injury-producing work, Ortiz's common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims must be dismissed (Williams v. 7–31 Ltd. Partnership, 54 A.D.3d 586, 586–587, 864 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2008] ).

Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Given the dismissal of Ortiz's claims, his wife's derivative claim also must be dismissed.


Summaries of

Ortiz v. IGBY Huntlaw LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 26, 2017
146 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

In Ortiz, the First Department held that the general contractor defendant was entitled to dismissal, as the plaintiff was injured while painting and the general contractor's contract with the owner "specifically excluded painting" (id. at 683).

Summary of this case from Topoli v. 77 Bleecker St. Corp.
Case details for

Ortiz v. IGBY Huntlaw LLC

Case Details

Full title:Wilson ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. IGBY HUNTLAW LLC…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 2017

Citations

146 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
49 N.Y.S.3d 17
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 550

Citing Cases

Topoli v. 77 Bleecker St. Corp.

(NYSCEF doc No. 46 at 70). Greenlight relies on the Ortiz v Igby Huntlaw LLC (146 AD3d 682 [1st Dept 2017]).…

Plumer v. Turner Constr. Co.

Here, M+W has failed to demonstrate that it is not a responsible party under the Labor Law. M+W has not…