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.
Ray GRAWIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TUDOR PLACE ASSOCIATES, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Ross Apple Construction Services Corp., Defendant-Appellant, [And A Third-Party Action].
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman J.), entered October 16, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries by a firefighter pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-a and for common-law negligence, denied defendant-appellant's demolition contractor's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Summary judgment dismissing the General Municipal Law § 205-a claim as against appellant is precluded by an issue of fact as to whether the partial building collapse allegedly caused by appellant's violation of Administrative Code § 27-127 in failing to properly shore up the building had a practical or reasonable relationship to plaintiff's use of a defective ladder in attempting to rescue appellant's worker (cf., O'Connell v. Kavanagh, 231 A.D.2d 29, 33-34, 662 N.Y.S.2d 1). That the violation was not issued to appellant, but rather to an entity affiliated with third-party defendant general contractor, is not determinative, since the statute imposes liability for violations of regulations relating to the safety of premises regardless of the violator's ownership or occupancy of the premises (see, Collaro v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 237 A.D.2d 319, 655 N.Y.S.2d 444). Issues of fact also exist with respect to the common-law negligence claim, including whether the ladder plaintiff used in rescuing a trapped worker was defective, and whether appellant was its owner or had notice of its presence on the rubble. We have considered appellant's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
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: April 29, 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)