JACKSON v. LEHIGH CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC ICS (2002)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Raymond JACKSON and Nadine Jackson, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. LEHIGH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Carrier Vibrating Equipment, Inc., Davis-Ulmer Sprinkler Company, Inc., Charles Dingman, Doing Business As Health Environment & Safety Technologies, Simplex Time Recorder Co., Marsh & Mc Lennan, Inc., Johnson & Higgins of Illinois, Inc., Cunningham Co., ICS/Executone Telecom, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Decided: November 15, 2002

Present: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, KEHOE, BURNS, and LAWTON, JJ.

Chelus, Herdzik, Speyer, Monte & Pajak, P.C., Buffalo (Michael F. Chelus of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant Lehigh Construction Group, Inc. Colucci & Gallaher, P.C., Buffalo (Ryan Gellman of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant Carrier Vibrating Equipment, Inc. Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., Buffalo (Andrea Schillaci of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant Davis-Ulmer Sprinkler Company, Inc. Volgenau & Bosse, LLP, Buffalo (Paula M. Eade Newcomb of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant Charles Dingman, Doing Business as Health Environment & Safety Technologies. Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber LLP, Buffalo (Kevin J. English of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant Simplex Time Recorder Co. Lustig & Brown, LLP, Buffalo (Troy S. Flascher of Counsel), for Defendants-Appellants Marsh & Mc Lennan, Inc. and Johnson & Higgins of Illinois, Inc. Gibson, Mc Askill & Crosby, LLP, Buffalo (Paulette E. Ross of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant Cunningham Co. Law Offices of Louis H. Siegel, Buffalo (Louis H. Siegel of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant ICS/Executone Telecom, Inc. The Cosgrove Law Firm, Buffalo (J. Michael Lennon of Counsel), for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Plaintiffs commenced this negligence and strict products liability action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Raymond Jackson (plaintiff) when a fire broke out in the ammonium persulfate warehouse next to the boiler room at the chemical plant where he was working. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying the motions of defendants-appellants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Defendants-appellants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they owed no duty to plaintiff with respect to the work they had contracted to perform for plaintiff's employer at its chemical plant (see generally Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 138-141, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485; Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579, 584-587, 611 N.Y.S.2d 817, 634 N.E.2d 189), and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motions are granted and the complaint against defendants-appellants is dismissed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law