Walsh v. Amherst Constr. Co., 226 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Walsh v. Amherst Constr. Co., 226 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Costa v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although the majority at the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, had held that “a sale and lease-back transaction between the fee owner and [the local industrial development agency] was not a ‘genuine allocation of ownership’ for purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1)” (226 AD2d at 1053), the Court of Appeals held otherwise, agreeing with the dissenters at the Appellate Division that the absolute liability of a title owner under Labor Law § 240 (1) must be imposed on the defendant agency as title owner, in the absence of an exception crafted by the legislature ( 89 NY2d at 838 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matthew J. Walsh
v.
Amherst Construction Company
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 19, 1996.
226 A.D.2d 1053
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying that portion of the motion of defendant University of Rochester (University) for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. Although University personnel visited the job site to observe the work and ensure that the project was being properly completed, the record contains no proof that they actually supervised or controlled the pouring of the concrete, during which plaintiff Matthew J. Walsh was injured (see, Mamo v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 209 AD2d 948, 949, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 924; see also, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876). The court properly denied that portion of the motion of defendant Amherst Construction Company for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, however, based upon the existence of triable issues of fact. We modify the order, therefore, by granting in its entirety the motion of the University for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Lunn, J.—Labor Law.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.