From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loper v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 1052 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 16, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siragusa, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff, The City of Rochester (City), for a conditional judgment for common-law indemnification against third-party defendant, Hudson Steel Fabricators and Erectors. Periodic inspection of the progress of the work by the City's assistant architect does not constitute the type of supervision or control necessary to establish the City's common-law liability for the injuries sustained by plaintiff at the worksite (see, Aragon v. 233 W. 21st St., 201 A.D.2d 353, 354; Curtis v. 37th St. Assocs., 198 A.D.2d 62, 63). Absent proof that the City's liability is other than vicarious, the motion should have been granted (see, Paterson v. Hennessy, 206 A.D.2d 919; Allman v. Ciminelli Constr. Co., 184 A.D.2d 1022, 1023).


Summaries of

Loper v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 1052 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Loper v. City of Rochester

Case Details

Full title:DONALD H. LOPER, JR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 1052 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 475

Citing Cases

Kingston v. Highlands

Thus, a factual issue exists as to whether Tait or Damico was responsible for the equipment and condition of…

Grant v. Gutchess Timberlands, Inc.

His testimony was corroborated by Target's supervisor, who stated that he never had any discussions with the…