 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Field v. New York University9/22/2003
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Miscellaneous Reports.
(*1)
(*2)
In this personal injury action, defendants, New York University ("NYU"), (*3)Corporate Interiors Contracting, Inc. ("Corp"), Eastern Exterior Wall Systems ("Eastern") and Exterior Erecting Services ("Exterior"), collectively move for relief on several grounds. First, defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiffs, Walter Field ("Field") and Kristen Field. Second, defendants seek an order dismissing Cranes, Inc. ("Cranes") third-party complaint against Eastern and Exterior and dismissing all cross-claims alleged by Cranes against all of the other defendants. Third, defendants ask that in the alternative, the court grant summary judgment for NYU, Corp, and Eastern against Cranes. The court will discuss each in turn.
NYU, owner of Kimble Hall, contracted with Corp to make renovations on the aforementioned property. Corp subcontracted with Eastern to fabricate exterior wall partitions for Kimble Hall. Eastern then subcontracted with Exterior to install the partitions at the site. Co-plaintiff Field is an employee of Exterior.
On September 9, 2000, Exterior leased a crane and a crane operator from Cranes to lift exterior wall panels being affixed to the structure. The hoisting was completed that day. Then, the process of readying the crane to leave began. Field, wearing gloves, placed his hand on the left rear outrigger to brace himself while he maneuvered the release handle so he could remove its footing plate. This step was necessary for retraction of the outrigger by Mr. Cosban, the crane operator. While Field's left hand was on the outrigger, Mr. Cosban retracted it and plaintiff's fingers were crushed. Plaintiffs subsequently commenced a lawsuit against NYU, Corp and Cranes asserting claims of (*4)common law negligence and violation of several provisions of the Labor Law. Defendant then demanded from plaintiffs a verified bill of particulars.
On May 3, 2001, plaintiffs served defendants a verified bill of particulars stating that Field suffered a "total amputation of the left index finger and severe laceration of the middle finger." On June 2001, Cranes impleaded Exterior and Eastern, claiming contribution and indemnity based on common law and contract terms.
I. Summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint
Defendants NYU, Corp and Eastern move for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint. Defendants claim this prong of their motion should be granted because none of the parties supervised, directed, or controlled any of the work performed by Field and because, as a matter of law, there are no statutory violations under the circumstances of this case.
Defendants argue that there are no valid claims against them under Labor Law § 240(1) or Labor Law § 200(1). However, plaintiffs have not asserted any Labor Law § 240(1) claims. Additionally, plaintiffs have withdrawn any Labor Law § 200(1) or common law negligence claims except as against Cranes. Therefore, it is unnecessary to address these arguments.
Therefore, plaintiffs' remaining claim is that defendants violated Labor Law § 241(6). This section states that " ll areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and (*5)safety to the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places." Labor Law § 241(6). To assert a valid 241(6) claim, plaintiffs must allege a specific violation of the Industrial Code. Ross v
Page 1 2 3 4 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|