Michael Passaro, appellant, v. 163 15 (2010)

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

Michael Passaro, appellant, v. 163-15 Northern Flushing Corp., et al., respondents.

2008-08873 2009-08352 (Index No. 2102 /07)

Decided: February 09, 2010

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. HOWARD MILLER JOHN M. LEVENTHAL CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellant. Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (David R. Holland of counsel), for respondent 163-15 Northern Flushing Corp. Fabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Dyki and Lisa A. Sokoloff of counsel), for respondent Lorich Construction Management, LLC. The defendants satisfied their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), which formed the basis for the plaintiff ‘s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, was inapplicable as he was not injured by a “sharp projection” (Tucker v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 36 AD3d 417, 417; Dalanna v City of New York, 308 A.D.2d 400, 401; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; cf. Lenard v 1251 Ams. Assoc., 241 A.D.2d 391, 393). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d at 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) based on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2).

Argued-December 1, 2009

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered August 19, 2008, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendant 163-15 Northern Flushing Corp. and the defendant Lorich Construction Management, LLC, which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) based on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), and (2) so much of a judgment of the same court entered October 10, 2008, as, upon the order, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order dated August 18, 2008, is deemed also to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[c] ).

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ).

RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

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!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law