Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michael Thompson, et al v. Bfp 300 Madison Ii

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


May 8, 2012

MICHAEL THOMPSON, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
BFP 300 MADISON II, LLC, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Thompson v BFP 300 Madison II, LLC

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 8, 2012

Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered May 2, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and § 241(6) and for common-law negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff injured his hand while moving a large fan coil box, which he did without the assistance of others. The court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against all defendants, since plaintiff's injury was caused not by a dangerous condition on the work site, but by the method or manner in which he chose to accomplish the task of moving the object (see Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]; LaRosa v Internap Network Servs. Corp., 83 AD3d 905, 908-909 [2011]). Moreover, the record demonstrates that defendants exercised no supervision or control over plaintiff's work (see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876 [1993]).

The Labor Law § 241(6) claim was also properly dismissed. The Industrial Code provisions on which plaintiffs relied involved tripping hazards (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e]), sharp objects (id.), and material piles (12 NYCRR 23-2.1[a]), and were inapplicable to this case (see Waitkus v Metropolitan Hous. Partners, 50 AD3d 260 [2008]; Castillo v Starrett City, 4 AD3d 320, 321 [2004]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 8, 2012

CLERK

20120508

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.