Legal Opinion
Krick v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 7, 1997PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Even assuming, arguendo, that Robert J. Krick was engaged in a protected activity when he was injured (see, Holka v Mt. Mercy Academy, 221 AD2d 949, lv dismissed 87 NY2d 1055), the complaint was properly dismissed. Because defendant Fluor Daniel, Inc. (Fluor Daniel), had no authority to supervise and control the work being performed by Krick, it is not liable pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) or § 241 (6) as an agent of the owner (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 318; Wright v Nichter Constr. Co., 213 AD2d 995, 995-996). Because there is no…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & SonNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Adamczyk v. Hillview Estates Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Wright v. Nichter Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Holka v. Mt. Mercy AcademyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Foster v. David J. Joseph Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fisher v. CoghlanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Bateman v. Walbridge Aldinger Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Millard v. Hueber-Breuer Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Schultz v. IwachiwAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Ullman v. MusallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003