From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Napoli v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 2005
21 A.D.3d 1071 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-00557.

September 26, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff, Triborough Bridge Tunnel Authority, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated November 17, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification.

Jeffrey S. Shein, Oyster Bay, N.Y. (Joan M. Faley of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Mallilo Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Mastro, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Triborough Bridge Tunnel Authority (hereinafter the TBTA) contracted with Grace Industries, Inc./El Sol (hereinafter Grace) to perform paving work on the Throgs Neck Bridge. While working on the Throgs Neck Bridge, the plaintiff, an employee of Grace, was injured when the attenuator truck he was driving was struck by another vehicle.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the TBTA's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The TBTA failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that it did not exercise supervisory control over the work site and that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition there ( see Shipkoski v. Watch Case Factory Assoc., 292 AD2d 589). Because the TBTA failed to establish its own lack of negligence as a matter of law, the court also properly denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification against Grace ( see Pardo v. Bialystoker Ctr. Bikur Cholim, Inc., 10 AD3d 298, 301).

The TBTA's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Napoli v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 2005
21 A.D.3d 1071 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Napoli v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT NAPOLI, Respondent, v. MYRA PETERS WRIGHT et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Sep 26, 2005

Citations

21 A.D.3d 1071 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 6910
803 N.Y.S.2d 632

Citing Cases

Durando v. City of New York

Turning to plaintiffs' Labor Law § 200 claim, the complaint does not allege a cause of action premised on…

Durando v. City of New York

Turning to plaintiffs' Labor Law § 200 claim, the complaint does not allege a cause of action premised on…