Legal Opinion · Dissent

Farruggia v. Town of Penfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 3, 2014Published

1DissentWhalen, J.

I respectfully dissent in part, because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant Town of Penfield (Town) is not an “owner” for the purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). I therefore would affirm the order insofar as it denied that part of the Town’s motion for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action against it. As the majority rightly notes, “the term ‘owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a person ‘who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2011
  2. Copertino v. WardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  3. Salazar v. Novalex Contracting Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Reisch v. Amadori Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  5. DeLong v. State Street Associates, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API