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.
Josephine L. RIEDEL, Respondent-Appellant, v. STEGER MATERIAL HANDLING CO., INC., J.G.M. Installation & Service, Inc., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court properly denied the cross motions of defendants Steger Material Handling Co., Inc. (Steger Material), and J.G.M. Installation & Service, Inc. (JGM), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There is proof from which the trier of fact could conclude that JGM created the condition that caused the accident and that Steger Material is responsible for the negligence of its subcontractor. The question of proximate cause “may be determined by the court as a matter of law only when there is but one conclusion that may be drawn from the facts” (Miglino v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 451, 662 N.Y.S.2d 818; see, Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Co., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666, rearg. denied 52 N.Y.2d 784, 436 N.Y.S.2d 622, 417 N.E.2d 1010).
The court also properly denied that part of plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and pierce the corporate veil of Steger Material by adding Richard Steger as a defendant. The corporate form may not be disregarded merely because the assets of the corporation and its insurance are insufficient to assure a potential plaintiff of recovery (see, Walkovszky v. Carlton, 18 N.Y.2d 414, 419, 276 N.Y.S.2d 585, 223 N.E.2d 6; Bowles v. Errico, 163 A.D.2d 771, 773, 558 N.Y.S.2d 734).
The court erred, however, in granting that part of plaintiff's motion seeking to state additional causes of action for alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). Because plaintiff was neither working on the loading dock renovation nor employed to carry out the repairs, she is not within the class of workers protected by those statutes (see, Gibson v. Worthington Div. of McGraw-Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 1108, 578 N.Y.S.2d 127, 585 N.E.2d 376; Valinoti v. Sandvik Seamco, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 344, 667 N.Y.S.2d 344). We modify the order, therefore, by denying that part of plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff's remaining contention is not preserved for our review.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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: October 02, 1998
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)