Eversfield v. Brush Hollow Realty, LLC
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Desrosiers v. HWA 1290 III LLC. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Reinhardt v. RCB1 Nominee, LLC. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Edwards v. State Univ. Constr. Fund (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Pacheco v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Carrasco v. Weissman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Abelleira v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Caravousanos v. Kings County Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Caravousanos v. Kings County Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Carey v. Five Bros. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Carey v. Five Bros. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Creese v. Long Island Lighting Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Creese v. Long Island Lighting Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the cross motion of the Mr. John defendants which was for summary judgment dismissing the common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action insofar as asserted them. The Mr. John defendants made a prima facie showing that they did not possess any authority to supervise or control the area in question, and that they were not the entity that placed the portable restroom in an allegedly defective manner (see Ortiz v I.B.K. Enters., Inc., 85 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2011]; Poracki v St. Mary’s R.C. Church, 82 AD3d 1192, 1195 [2011]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324).
The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the motion of the Brush Hollow defendants and the cross motion of the Mr. John defendants which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action as was predicated on section 23-1.7 (e) of the Industrial Code
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.