Legal Opinion

Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1998Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Rose H. Sconiers, J.

*699Plaintiff, Robert Striegel, by notice of motion seeks partial summary judgment imposing liability against defendant and third-party plaintiff, Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation (Hillcrest), under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and reserving for trial the issues of plaintiff’s damages. Hillcrest as the owner and general contractor of a certain construction project of residential housing, including 35 North Hill Drive, East Aurora, New York, resists this motion and cross-moves for summary judgment seeking indemnification and costs from…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Damon v. StarkweatherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. White v. Sperry Supply & Warehouse, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  4. Manning v. Town of LewistonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API