From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weaver v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 1996
224 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 13, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the cause of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1), as the plaintiff Terry Weaver was not injured as a result of a gravity-related hazard (see, Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487; Rodriguez v. Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 N.Y.2d 841; Smerka v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 206 A.D.2d 891; Schreiner v. Cremosa Cheese Corp., 202 A.D.2d 657). The cause of action based upon Labor Law § 241 (6) was also properly dismissed because of the plaintiffs' failure to cite an appropriate regulation implementing this statute (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; Lazar v County of Ontario, 221 A.D.2d 916; Vernieri v. Empire Realty Co., 219 A.D.2d 593).

The causes of action based upon Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were also properly dismissed against all the respondents. There was no showing that the owner of the premises had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition, or the ability to direct or control the work giving rise to the injuries of the plaintiff Terry Weaver (see, Comes v New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876). As for the remaining respondents, there was no showing that any negligence on their part was a proximate cause of this accident.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weaver v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 1996
224 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Weaver v. Chan

Case Details

Full title:TERRY WEAVER et al., Appellants, v. HOWARD CHAN et al., Respondents, et…

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

Date published: Feb 13, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 145

Citing Cases

Strunk v. Buckley

Nor did he allege "a violation of a specific "concrete' provision of the industrial code" ( Phillips v. City…

Stafford v. Via. Inc.

The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied SCS's motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, denied that…