From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bennett v. Fairchild R. Char., I

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2002
298 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-06415

Argued September 23, 2002.

October 15, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated June 11, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Mairoll, Inc., Fairchild Communications Company, and Fairchild Holding Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Rappaport, Glass, Greene Levine, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Matthew J. Zullo of counsel), for appellant.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, New York, N.Y. (Tara L. Stagg of counsel), for respondents.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants Mairoll, Inc., Fairchild Communications Company, and Fairchild Holding Company (hereinafter the Fairchild defendants) made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiff's causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence by establishing that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the hole in the wall through which the plaintiff fell (see CPLR 3212[b]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Fairchild defendants were also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e inasmuch as none of the predicate statutory and regulatory violations alleged by the plaintiff was applicable in the present case (see Brunelle v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 347, 348).

The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the plaintiff's causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), since the plaintiff was not in the class of persons afforded protection under those provisions of the Labor Law (see Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 573, 577), and the accident did not arise in a construction context (see Vernieri v. Empire Realty, 219 A.D.2d 593, 595).

S. MILLER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bennett v. Fairchild R. Char., I

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2002
298 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Bennett v. Fairchild R. Char., I

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH BENNETT, appellant, v. FAIRCHILD REPUBLIC CHARTER, INC., ETC., ET…

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 260

Citing Cases

Morton v. State

Since the claimant was performing work without the State's permission or knowledge, he was not a person…

Jones v. Fried

The existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the Wolk defendants had notice of a recurring…