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.
Richard H. DOMENECH, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Slattery-Argrett, et al., Defendants. [And A Third Party Action].
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered July 24, 1997, which denied as untimely defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as against Associated Engineers. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant Associated Engineers dismissing the complaint as against it.
The IAS court erred in rejecting as untimely the motion by Associated Engineers (Associated) for summary judgment, since it was made within 120 days of the effective date of the amendment to CPLR 3212(a) (see, Phoenix Garden Restaurant, Inc. v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164, 667 N.Y.S.2d 20; see also, Krug v. Jones, 252 A.D.2d 572, 675 N.Y.S.2d 302).
Turning to the merits of Associated's claim, it is well settled that liability for an injury sustained by a worker may not be imposed upon an engineer who was hired to assure compliance with construction plans and specifications, unless the engineer commits an affirmative act of negligence or such liability is imposed by a clear contractual provision (Prado v. Bowne & Sons, 207 A.D.2d 875, 616 N.Y.S.2d 656).
[The] duty to inspect was not sufficient by itself to result in liability under the Labor Law since the contract only obligated defendant to report any deviations from the project design or delays to the engineer in charge, an employee of the State, and there is no evidence otherwise to indicate that defendant had any duty or authority to direct that any action be taken by the State in response to its inspection.
(Carter v. Vollmer Associates, 196 A.D.2d 754, 602 N.Y.S.2d 48.) Similarly, in this case, Associated's function was to report to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The contract specifically states that it was the agent of the DEP, and there is no evidence that it had any authority to require any type of corrective action. There is nothing in the terms of the contract or plaintiff's other submissions that would raise a triable issue of fact on that issue.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: January 07, 1999
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)