Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sotero AVILES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, J.E. Activities, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents. [And a Third Party Action].
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about March 18, 1999, granting plaintiff's motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order of the same court and Justice entered December 21, 1998, which insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant-respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend their bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 21, 1998, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of March 18, 1999.
Plaintiff, a handyman in the employ of third-party defendant maintenance company, was placing new sheetrock on a bedroom wall that had sustained water damage a few days before, when a portion of the ceiling collapsed causing his injuries. Defendant-respondent was engaged by the building owner as construction manager to oversee the rehabilitation of certain unoccupied apartments, including the apartment directly above the one where plaintiff was injured. There is no evidence that defendant was a general contractor or otherwise played any role with respect to plaintiff's work such as might expose it to liability under either Labor Law 240(1) or Labor Law § 241(6). We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them unavailing.
MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 02, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)