PARTY DEFENDANT RESPONDENT v. << (2011)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PARTY DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

CA 11–00958

Decided: December 23, 2011

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MAXWELL MURPHY, LLC, BUFFALO (ALAN D. VOOS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. BROWN & TARANTINO, LLC, BUFFALO (ANN M. CAMPBELL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS AND THIRD–PARTY PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS. MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP, SYRACUSE (JENNIFER P. WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD–PARTY DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

ORDER

CONTOUR ERECTION AND SIDING SYSTEMS, INC.,

THIRD

CONTOUR ERECTION AND SIDING SYSTEMS, INC.,

THIRD

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying those parts of the motions of defendants-third-party plaintiffs and third-party defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the Labor Law § 241(6) claim to the extent that it is premised on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23–3.3(h), reinstating those claims and denying that part of the motion of third-party defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints and reinstating the third-party complaints, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs (see Charney v. LeChase Constr., _ AD3d _ [Dec. 23, 2011] ).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network