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.
Fausto MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORRIS AVE. EQUITIES, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Marion Window Glass and Shade Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered March 8, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant County Engineering Co., a Division of Ross Window Corporation (Ross) and the cross motion of Morris Ave. Equities Corp. (Morris) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against each movant, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from so much of the same order as denied the cross motion of defendant Marion Glass and Window Shade Corporation (Marion) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, withdrawn in accordance with the stipulation of the parties.
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim was properly dismissed since the work he was performing at the time of the alleged accident, i.e., repairing a window in an existing apartment, constituted maintenance, not construction, demolition or excavation of a building or structure. Likewise, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence claim against Morris, the owner of the building in which the alleged hazard was situated, was appropriate since the defect which caused the injury was not a defect about which Morris was on notice (see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628, 646, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135 [1996]; Gordon v. Am. Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 [1986] ).
Finally, in the absence of admissible proof sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant Ross installed the allegedly hazardous window, summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Ross was proper and would not have been properly denied upon plaintiff's speculation that further discovery might reveal that Ross had in fact installed the window (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980]; Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1068, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790, 390 N.E.2d 298 [1979] ).
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: June 20, 2006
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)