Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Maxine DELOACH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: February 23, 1999

SULLIVAN, J.P., ELLERIN, WILLIAMS and WALLACH, JJ. Howard A. Suckle, for Plaintiff-Respondent. Linda H. Young, for Defendant-Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered December 29, 1997, which, in an action by a laborer under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 to recover for personal injuries sustained at a construction site repairing the FDR Drive, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant City's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly held that although defendant City was not a party to the construction contract between plaintiff's employers and the State, it nevertheless should be deemed an “owner” of the site for purposes of the Labor Law, because it at all times shared concurrent responsibility with the State for the safety of this arterial highway and had the right to approve all of the plans, designs and specifications for its reconstruction (Highway Law § 349-c[3.1]-[3.4],[3.6];  see, Nowlin v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 81, 86-87, 595 N.Y.S.2d 927, 612 N.E.2d 285;  Gregorio v. City of New York, 246 A.D.2d 275, 677 N.Y.S.2d 119).


Copied to clipboard