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.
Phillip MIANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND, Defendant, D'Angelo Construction Corp., Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff, a student at Buffalo State College (College), commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained when he tripped on the lip of a pipe while walking on the College campus. D'Angelo Construction Corp. (defendant) had repaired a ruptured water main below the site of the accident approximately four months earlier and, because of wintry weather, had been directed by the State Office of General Services, which was overseeing the repairs, to discontinue its work. Consequently, defendant did not pave or pour concrete in certain areas that had been repaired, including the area where plaintiff fell. At the conclusion of defendant's work, the College conducted regular inspections of the area and placed additional loose stones as needed in the area surrounding the protruding pipe.
Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross claims against it. Whatever duty of care defendant owed to plaintiff terminated when the College directed defendant to discontinue its work four months before the accident. Any liability must be premised upon the duty to warn plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition or upon the duty to place loose stones around the pipe during the four-month hiatus in construction, both of which duties were assumed by the College when it took control over the construction area at the conclusion of defendant's work. Without control over the construction area, defendant had no duty with respect to the temporary condition that resulted in plaintiff's accident. In the absence of duty, there can be no liability (see generally, Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 782, 390 N.Y.S.2d 393, 358 N.E.2d 1019, rearg. denied 41 N.Y.2d 901, 393 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 362 N.E.2d 640).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: February 01, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)