The owners' cross motion was properly denied because, although no issues of fact exist as to the purely vicarious nature of their liability, their evidence does not establish, as a matter of law, that the general contractor was either negligent or exclusively supervised and controlled plaintiff's work site (cf., Dias v Stahl,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
REILLY v. S. DIGIACOMO & SON, INC.
261 A.D.2d 318 (1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 424
TED REILLY, Plaintiff, v. S. DIGIACOMO & SON, INC., Respondent, and EVE H. RICE et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided May 25, 1999.
Decided May 25, 1999.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.