From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rajkumar v. Budd Contracting Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 5, 2015
125 A.D.3d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

02-05-2015

Dhanraj RAJKUMAR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BUDD CONTRACTING CORPORATION, Defendant–Respondent, Sheraton Hotel, et al., Defendants. [And A Third–Party Action].

Kravet, Hoefer & Maher, P.C., Bronx (John A. Maher of counsel), for appellant. Nicoletti Gonson Spinner LLP, New York (Benjamin Gonson of counsel), for respondent.


Kravet, Hoefer & Maher, P.C., Bronx (John A. Maher of counsel), for appellant.

Nicoletti Gonson Spinner LLP, New York (Benjamin Gonson of counsel), for respondent.

ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, FEINMAN, CLARK, KAPNICK, JJ.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered July 29, 2013, which granted defendant Budd Contracting Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff, an employee of a framing contractor, commenced this action alleging that he slipped and was injured while carrying a framed mirror when his foot became caught in a seam between pieces of construction paper laid by general contractor Budd to protect a newly installed floor during a hotel lobby renovation project. Plaintiff alleges that Budd created the defective condition that caused his accident. Thus Budd's arguments regarding actual and constructive notice are irrelevant. While Budd asserts that there was no evidence that the construction paper was untaped, on its motion for summary judgment, it had the burden of demonstrating that the paper was secured to the floor (see Kamin v. James G. Kennedy & Co., Inc., 52 A.D.3d 263, 264, 861 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2008] ). However, it points to no evidence that the tape covered the entire length of the edges of the construction paper, as its project manager testified was necessary or else the paper would not stay down and could be a tripping hazard. Accordingly, Budd failed to meet its burden of establishing prima facie that it properly secured the paper in which plaintiff allegedly caught his foot (id. ).


Summaries of

Rajkumar v. Budd Contracting Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 5, 2015
125 A.D.3d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Rajkumar v. Budd Contracting Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Dhanraj RAJKUMAR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BUDD CONTRACTING CORPORATION…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 5, 2015

Citations

125 A.D.3d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
3 N.Y.S.3d 341
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 968

Citing Cases

Davila v. The City of New York

Howell's laborers to whom he spoke on a regular basis relating to debris removal. Plaintiff's testimony is…