From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fuller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1995
213 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 17, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Robert M. Fuller (plaintiff), a cable television repairman employed by third-party defendant, Harron Communications Corp. (Harron), was injured when the ladder he was climbing slipped, causing him to fall. Plaintiff was investigating a customer's complaint about "snowy reception". The cable line was attached to a utility pole owned jointly by defendants, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk) and Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. (OCRT). Because the connection to be checked was at a distance from the pole and the ladder was too short to reach Harron's cable line, plaintiff placed the ladder against the OCRT line located directly below the cable line.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against Niagara Mohawk and OCRT alleging a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and defendants' cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint were summarily denied by Supreme Court.

The court erred in denying defendants' cross motion. A utility pole is a "structure" within the meaning of the statute (see, Lewis-Moors v. Contel of N.Y., 78 N.Y.2d 942, 943) and the lines attached thereto may also be considered a structure (see, Garrant v. New York Tel. Co., 179 A.D.2d 960). Also, we conclude that the work being performed by plaintiff constituted a repair or alteration of the structure within the meaning of the statute (see, Dedario v. New York Tel. Co., 162 A.D.2d 1001). Defendants are not liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), however, because they are not "owners" of the television cable line being repaired or altered by plaintiff at the time of the accident (see, Labor Law § 240), and did not otherwise act in the capacity of an owner (see, Mangiameli v. Galante, 171 A.D.2d 162, 164).


Summaries of

Fuller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1995
213 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Fuller v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT M. FULLER et al., Respondents, v. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 17, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 108

Citing Cases

Sarigul v. New York Telephone Co.

We agree with the IAS court that the subject telephone pole and its wiring were a "structure" under the…

Williams v. LeChase

Contrary to the argument of plaintiff's counsel, according to the plaintiff himself, he was working on the…