From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sharaby v. Gamel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 3, 1985
113 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

September 3, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.).


Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to amend their complaint to add causes of action based upon alleged violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and the rules promulgated by the Board of Standards and Appeals as referred to in Labor Law § 241 (7), (8) was properly denied.

The infant plaintiffs and their parents were tenants of two apartments in a building owned by defendant Lena Gamel, the infant plaintiffs' maternal grandmother. It is conceded by plaintiffs' counsel that while the two apartments were being converted into a single duplex apartment for their own use, the Sharaby family temporarily relocated to other premises. However, on September 17, 1982, although the renovation was not completed at that time, the family returned to the apartment for their own convenience. On the day of the family's return, the infant plaintiffs' mother placed an urn containing hot water on top of the dishwasher in one of the apartments. It is alleged that at about 11:30 P.M. that evening, the infant plaintiffs were injured when the dishwasher tipped over, causing the urn to tip over and spill the hot water contained therein, scalding the children. It is undisputed that work was not being done at the time of the alleged accident. Therefore, Special Term properly determined that Labor Law § 241 was not intended to protect the infant plaintiffs under the unusual factual circumstances of this case (cf. Celestine v City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 592, 593, affd 59 N.Y.2d 938; Alver v Duarte, 80 A.D.2d 182).

We note that it was proper for Special Term to reach and pass upon the issue of the sufficiency of the proposed additional causes of action in determining the plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to amend the complaint (Sharapata v Town of Islip, 82 A.D.2d 350, 362, affd 56 N.Y.2d 332; Andersen v University of Rochester, 91 A.D.2d 851, appeal dismissed 59 N.Y.2d 968). Mollen, P.J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sharaby v. Gamel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 3, 1985
113 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Sharaby v. Gamel

Case Details

Full title:AVRAHAM SHARABY et al., Infants, by Their Mother and Natural Guardian…

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

Date published: Sep 3, 1985

Citations

113 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Thomson McKinnon Sec., Inc. v. Cioccolanti

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. A motion for leave to amend a complaint may be denied if the…

Callari v. Pellitieri

Plaintiff concedes that no cause of action exists against his coemployees (Pellitieri, Labenski and Gambino)…