From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huston v. Hayden Building Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 1997
238 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 28, 1997


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Rudolph, J.), dated April 12, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendant and third-party plaintiff, Hayden Building Maintenance Corp., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court (Sherwood, J.), dated May 30, 1996, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant, Hayden Roofing Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order, dated May 30, 1996, is dismissed as the plaintiffs are not aggrieved thereby; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 12, 1996 is reversed, on the law, the motion of the defendant and third-party plaintiff for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint and third-party complaint are reinstated; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs payable by the defendant and third-party plaintiff.

The Supreme Court improperly applied New York State law to this case which involved an accident at a New Jersey construction site, since New Jersey has the greatest interest in having its conduct-regulating rules apply to conduct within its borders ( see, Schultz v. Boy Scouts, 65 N.Y.2d 189; Hardzynski v ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 227 A.D.2d 449; Huston v. Hayden Bldg. Maintenance Corp., 205 A.D.2d 68).

In applying New Jersey negligence law, we find that the plaintiffs established a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff Ralph Huston ( see, Meder v. Resorts Intl. Hotel, 240 N.J. Super. 470, 573 A.2d 922; Sanna v National Sponge Co., 209 N.J. Super. 60, 506 A.2d 1258; Wolczak v National Elec. Prods. Corp., 66 N.J. Super. 64, 168 A.2d 412).

Moreover, issues of fact exist as to the issue of special employment ( see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553). Accordingly, the complaint should be reinstated, and the third-party complaint should be reinstated as it is derivative of the main action. Mangano, P.J., Pizzuto, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Huston v. Hayden Building Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 1997
238 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Huston v. Hayden Building Maintenance Corp.

Case Details

Full title:RALPH HUSTON et al., Appellants, v. HAYDEN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORP.…

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

Date published: Apr 28, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 945