Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

HAMMOND v. ALEKNA CONSTRUCTION INC (1999)

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

Gina M. HAMMOND, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALEKNA CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Defendants,

Stetson-Harza, Inc., a/k/a Harza Northeast, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Anthony J. Sisti and Joanne A. Sisti, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Alekna Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants,

Stetson-Harza, Inc., a/k/a Harza Northeast, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Candice O'Shea, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alekna Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants,

Stetson-Harza, Inc., a/k/a Harza Northeast, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Rima Badalians, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alekna Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants,

Stetson-Harza, Inc., a/k/a Harza Northeast, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Judith L. Jones, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alekna Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants,

Stetson-Harza, Inc., a/k/a Harza Northeast, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. United States Mineral Products Company, d/b/a Isolatek International, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Utica City School District, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Decided: December 30, 1999

PRESENT:  GREEN, J.P., LAWTON, PIGOTT, JR., SCUDDER and CALLAHAN, JJ.

Timothy J. Perry, Syracuse, for Defendant-Appellant. Donald E. Keinz, Utica, for Plaintiff-Respondent Gina M. Hammond. Stephanie A. Palmer, Canastota, for Plaintiffs-Respondents Anthony J. Sisti, Joanne A. Sisti, Candice O'Shea, Rima Badalians and Judith L. Jones.

 Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant Stetson-Harza, Inc., a/k/a Harza Northeast, Inc. (Harza), seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaints and cross claims against it.   Harza was hired by third-party defendant Utica City School District to provide architectural and engineering services for construction of a junior high school.   Plaintiffs, employees and former employees of Utica City School District, allege that Harza's negligent design of the air ventilation system resulted in their exposure to CAFCO, a substance used to fireproof duct work, causing injury to each of them.   Although Harza met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether the design of the air ventilation system was defective (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).  Furthermore, the motion was premature.   Plaintiffs established that discovery is incomplete and that facts bearing on the issue of the design of the ventilation system are within the exclusive control of Harza (see, CPLR 3212[f];  Shellberry v. Albright, 262 A.D.2d 942, 693 N.Y.S.2d 466).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

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

HAMMOND v. ALEKNA CONSTRUCTION INC (1999)

Decided: December 30, 1999

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

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

    More Options

    For Legal Professionals

    Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

    Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

    Sign up

    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.

    Go to Learn About the Law

    Need to find an attorney?

    Search our directory by legal issue

    Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

      More Options
      Copied to clipboard