Legal Opinion
McCune v. Black River Constructors
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 8, 1996PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1079The court erred, however, in denying that part of defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 cause of action. Defendants established that they exercised no supervisory control over the method of plaintiff’s work (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877). Defendants’ general supervisory authority over safety standards at the work site is insufficient to establish defendants’ liability under section 200 (see, McSweeney v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 216 AD2d 878, lv denied 86 NY2d 710; Mamo v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 209 AD2d…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Mamo v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- McSweeney v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by15 opinions
- Piazza v. Frank L. Ciminelli Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Dennis v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Riley v. John W. Stickl Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Ramski v. Zappia Enterprises, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Riccio v. Shaker Pine, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.