From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bale v. Pyron Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 31, 1998
256 A.D.2d 1128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 31, 1998

Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fahey, J. — Summary Judgment.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell while employed by third-party defendant on premises owned by defendant. Plaintiff fell while walking from the construction site to a job trailer located outside a nearby building. Plaintiff was walking close to that building to avoid the wind, and he slipped and fell on snow-covered ice under an awning protecting a doorway from the run-off of water from the gutterless roof.

Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The "presence of ice below the gutterless roof raises a question of fact as to causation and [the owner's] responsibility * * * for defects on the premises over which he retains control" ( El Shammaa v. Parent, 237 A.D.2d 684, 685; see also, Loguidice v. Fiorito, 254 A.D.2d 714; Migli v. Davenport, 249 A.D.2d 932).

The court properly granted that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) claim and third-party defendant's cross motion for the same relief. The Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) claim is premised upon an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and (e). Because the accident occurred in an open area and not on a defined walkway, passageway or path, section 23-1.7 (d) does not apply ( see, Hill v. Corning Inc., 237 A.D.2d 881, 882, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 90 N.Y.2d 884; McGrath v. Lake Tree Vil. Assocs., 216 A.D.2d 877, 878). Section 23-1.7 (e) also does not apply because plaintiff slipped on ice and did not trip as the result of an obstruction such as dirt or debris within the meaning of subdivision (e) ( cf., Cafarella v. Harrison Radiator Div., 237 A.D.2d 936).

Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.


Summaries of

Bale v. Pyron Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 31, 1998
256 A.D.2d 1128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Bale v. Pyron Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL L. BALE, Respondent-Appellant, v. PYRON CORPORATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 31, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 1128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
684 N.Y.S.2d 393

Citing Cases

Waszak v. State

The court erred, however, in sustaining the cause of action insofar as it alleges a violation of 12 NYCRR…

Wallace v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.

However, the Court grants Amtrak's and Weeks's motions for summary judgment with respect to Wallace's claim…