Cottone v. Dormitory Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*1033Supreme Court erred in denying that part of the motion of The Pike Company, Inc. (defendant) seeking to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 cause of action. The dangerous condition arose from the subcontractor’s methods, and defendant did not exercise any supervisory control over those methods (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876; Mamo v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 209 AD2d 948, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 924). Further, defendant, a general contractor, had no duty to protect against readily observable conditions (see, Gasper v Ford Motor Co., 13 NY2d 104, 110, mot to amend…
2Cases cited9 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
- Jock v. FienNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Gasper v. Ford Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Adams v. Glass Fab, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Fassett v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Velasquez v. 795 Columbus LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Kobel v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Scarupa v. Lockport Energy Associates, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Vega v. FNUB, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.