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 Bender, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 101 Productions Ltd., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for 101 Productions Ltd., respondent.
DeCicco, Gibbons & McNamara, P.C., New York (William A. Fitzgerald of counsel), for Jumpers Ltd., respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered on or about October 8, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant 101 Productions Ltd.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Richard Bender was hired by the Nederlander Theater Group to, inter alia, move props for a production entitled Jumpers. He performed this work under the direct supervision of his boss, Ron Knox, of Nederlander. Plaintiff was injured while working. We perceive no liability on the part of defendant 101 Productions, Inc. or the technical director, David Benken, who was selected by 101 Productions, and who contracted with defendant Jumpers, LLC, to oversee various aspects of the production of the play. There is no evidence that Benken had notice of the movement of the prop, undertaken by plaintiff, Knox and a different Jumpers employee, that allegedly caused plaintiff's injuries (see Balaj v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 211 A.D.2d 487 [1995], lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 811 [1995] ). Knox testified only that he sought additional men to move a large bed, not the item causing plaintiff's injury, and that he may have spoken to Benken a second time, but nowhere testified that the subject of this possible second conversation concerned the movement of the injury-causing object.
We decline Jumpers' invitation to search the record and find in its favor, since triable issues of fact remain as to whether Jumpers' employee, Denise Grillo, acted negligently.
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 4398
Decided: March 15, 2011
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)