ROSCIANO v. 1600

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Francis ROSCIANO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROYAL FARMS, INC., et al., Appellants, 1600 Bruckner Associates, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: February 24, 1997

Before MILLER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, FLORIO and LUCIANO, JJ. Gordon & Silber, P.C., New York City (Jon D. Lichtenstein, of counsel), for appellants. Ross & Hill (Steve S. Efron, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Royal Farms, Inc., and Royal Farms Supermarket, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated January 31, 1996, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff, a plumber, who was hired to install a fixture, was allegedly injured when he cut his hand on sharp cracked tiles in the work area to which he was assigned.   There is no merit to the appellants' contention that he was precluded from bringing this action because his injuries were sustained as a result of a dangerous condition he was employed to repair, as the plaintiff had not been hired to repair the tiles, and he did not undertake to remedy the dangerous tile condition (cf, Wolfe v. Teele, 223 A.D.2d 854, 636 N.Y.S.2d 198;  Brugnano v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 216 A.D.2d 18, 627 N.Y.S.2d 635;  Sanders v. TDX Constr. Corp., 203 A.D.2d 353, 612 N.Y.S.2d 915;  McCullum v. Barrington Co. & 309 56th St. Co., 192 A.D.2d 489, 597 N.Y.S.2d 295).  Summary judgment was therefore properly denied.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard