Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Gawel v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 11, 1997

237 A.D.2d 138; 655 N.Y.S.2d 351; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2364

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Hughes v. Tishman Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Winkler v. Halmar Intl., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Lemache v. MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Lemache v. MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Vasquez v. Urbahn Associates Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Cardenas v. One State Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Jarvis v. Crotona Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Perillo v. Lehigh Construction Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Thomas v. 2 Overhill Road Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Bush v. Gregory/Madison Avenue, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Bald v. Westfield Academy & Central School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Sainato v. City of Albany (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Randazzo v. Consolidated Edison Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Terry v. Mutual Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Quinn v. Tishman Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Freitas v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Boss v. Integral Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about December 12, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to deny defendant’s motion, and to reinstate those two causes of action.

We find, contrary to the motion court, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) (Colluci v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 218 AD2d 513), 12 NYCRR 23-1.30 (Dickson v Fantis Foods, 235 AD2d 452), and 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) (Zuniga v Stam Realty, 169 Misc 2d 1004) contain "concrete specifications”, rendering the section 241 (6) claim viable, and find issues of fact as to whether their alleged violation contributed to plaintiffs injury. The section 200 claim is also viable. The testimony of defendant’s chief construction inspector that he was stationed at the work site, inspected the work on a daily basis, kept a daily log, and had the authority to stop the performance of and to order the correction of unsafe *139work practices raise issues of fact as to whether defendant supervised the work site (see, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.