Legal Opinion
Durfee v. Eastman Kodak Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 3, 1995PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. The dangerous condition arose from the contractor’s methods; the owner exercised no supervisory control over the work that resulted in injuries to Richard Durfee (plaintiff) (see, Comes v *972New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876; Mamo v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 209 AD2d 948).
The court erred, however, in granting that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Samiani v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Mamo v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Baird v. Lydall, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by21 opinions
- Adams v. Glass Fab, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- McGrath v. Lake Tree Village AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Ozzimo v. H.E.S., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Cafarella v. Harrison Radiator Division of General MotorsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Enderlin v. Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.