Lara v. Saint John's University
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Nicola v. Nicolas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- LaRosa v. Internap Network Services Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Poelker v. Swan Lake Golf Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Ford v. HRH Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Stafford v. Viacom, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Israel v. Fairharbor Owners, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Sowa v. S.J.N.H. Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- American Express Centurion Bank v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Parisi v. Loewen Development of Wappinger Falls, LP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Sanchez v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Shipkoski v. Watch Case Factory Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Jablonski v. Fulton Corners Inc. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2002)
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
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated October 4, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
A landowner may be held liable for a violation of Labor Law § 200 or in common-law negligence for injuries allegedly suffered by a worker due to a defective condition on its premises if it had actual or constructive notice of the condition or exercised supervision or control over the work being performed (see, Cuartas v Kourkoumelis, 265 AD2d 293).
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. The defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiffs failed to identify in their pleadings or in deposition testimony any defective condition in either the oil tank or the adjoining area where the accident occurred. While the injured plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion asserted that the accident was caused by a defective ventilation system, this claim was unsubstantiated and conclusory. Moreover, the affidavit was carefully tailored to raise a triable issue of fact, and merely raised a feigned factual issue which was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Wright v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 254 AD2d 277; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388). In any event, even if the plaintiffs did raise an issue of fact as to whether the ventilation system was defective, they failed to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the purported defect, and that it did not supervise or control the injured plaintiff’s work (see, Cuartas v Kourkoumelis, supra). Florio, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.