You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Corona v. Metropolitan 298-308 Associates, Inc.

Citations: 281 A.D.2d 447; 722 N.Y.S.2d 51; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2378

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 11, 2001; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a personal injury case, defendants Minnow Associates, Daniel Miller, Judy Miller, and Gerald Miller appeal an order from the Supreme Court of Kings County that granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a four-story building during work for S.H. Construction, with Metropolitan 298-308 Associates, Inc. as the building owner and Minnow Associates as the managing agent. The appellants, who are partners in Minnow, argue they should not be held liable as they did not exercise control over the plaintiff's work. However, the court clarified that liability under Labor Law § 240(1) hinges on whether the party had the right to control the work, not whether they exercised that control. The evidence supported that the appellants had the right to control the plaintiff's work, leading to the affirmation of the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment against them.

Legal Issues Addressed

Liability under Labor Law § 240(1)

Application: The court determined that liability under Labor Law § 240(1) is based on the right to control the work, regardless of whether that control was exercised.

Reasoning: The court clarified that liability under Labor Law § 240(1) hinges on whether the party had the right to control the work, not whether they exercised that control.

Summary Judgment in Personal Injury Cases

Application: The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability was granted because the evidence demonstrated that the defendants had the right to control the work, affirming the lower court's decision.

Reasoning: The evidence supported that the appellants had the right to control the plaintiff's work, leading to the affirmation of the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment against them.