Gentile v. New York City Hous. Auth., 228 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Gentile v. New York City Hous. Auth., 228 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …was not engaged 'in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing' of a 'building or structure' within the intended meaning of labor law 240 (1) ✓ Topic ↗
14 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gedula 26, LLC v. Lightstone Acquisitions III LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
WPP Group USA v Interpublic Group of Cos. , 228 AD2d 296, 297 [1st Dept 1996]; see also Rawald v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. , 199 AD3d 477 , 478 [1st Dept 2021]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Retail Consulting Servs., Inc. v. New TSI Holdings, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
In view of the references to written communications in the proposed amended complaint, and plaintiff's demonstration that defendants may be in exclusive possession of other writings, plaintiff is entitled to complete discovery before being required to show that it has satisfied the statute of frauds ( see Silver v Silver , 63 AD3d 903 [*2], 903 [2d Dept 2009]; WPP Group USA v Interpublic Group of Cos. , 228 AD2d 296, 297 [1st Dept 1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Retail Consulting Servs., Inc. v. New TSI Holdings, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
In view of the references to written communications in the proposed amended complaint, and plaintiff's demonstration that defendants may be in exclusive possession of other writings, plaintiff is entitled to complete discovery before being required to show that it has satisfied the statute of frauds ( see Silver v Silver , 63 AD3d 903 [*2], 903 [2d Dept 2009]; WPP Group USA v Interpublic Group of Cos. , 228 AD2d 296, 297 [1st Dept 1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Silver v. Silver
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is entitled to discovery before he is required to show that he has satisfied the statute of frauds (see WPP Group USA v Interpublic Group of Cos., 228 AD2d 296, 297 [1996]; International Trading & Sales v Philipp Bros., 99 AD2d 983 [1984]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Angelo Gentile
v.
New York City Housing Authority, and Third-Party Premium Landscaping Company, Third-Party
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 18, 1996.
228 A.D.2d 296
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Plaintiff, who was the driver of a truck that hauled away concrete construction debris, fell to the ground from a height of 9 to 10 feet. This happened after he lost his balance while pulling a tarpaulin from a stationary roller over the truck’s contents. However, because the record establishes that plaintiff was not engaged "in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing” of "a building or structure” within the intended meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1), the IAS Court erred in granting summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability, and should have dismissed the cause of action. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.