O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 7 N.Y.3d 805, 822 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2006 NY Slip Op 6344, 855 N.E.2d 1159, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 2137

Decision Date: 8/31/2006

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co., 7 N.Y.3d 805, 822 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2006 NY Slip Op 6344, 855 N.E.2d 1159, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 2137 (2006)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2006

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

S.D.N.Y.2

2d Cir.1

E.D.N.Y.1

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.1

Most recently cited by5

2025Yaucan v. Times Sq. Hotel Owner, LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2014In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation S.D.N.Y.
2014Wallace v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. S.D.N.Y.
2011Homola v. Praxair, Inc. 2d Cir.
2008Lamela v. City of New York E.D.N.Y.

Cites 1 case

Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Sean O’Sullivan, Appellant, v IDI Construction Company, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant. IDI Construction Company, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Teman Electrical Construction, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria LLP, Buffalo {John A. Collins of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York City (Mathew P. Ross of counsel), for respondent and third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Newman Fitch Altheim Myers, PC., New York City (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for Cosner Construction, third-party defendant-respondent.
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for Teman Electric Construction, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The courts below properly concluded that plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2), failed because the electrical pipe or conduit that plaintiff tripped over was an integral part of the construction. Further, plaintiff cannot recover in negligence or pursuant to Labor Law § 200 because no triable issue of fact exists that defendant IDI Construction Company, Inc.’s on-site safety manager “control [led] the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition” (Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317 [1981]) or that IDI maintained an unreasonably dangerous work environment.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.