Case ID: ad2d_260/html/0367-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Teixeira, Plaintiff, v East End Country Kitchens, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Bi-County Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
    [687 NYS2d 697]
   —In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated March 5, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the third-party complaint is dismissed.

The third-party defendant Bi-County Construction Corp. (hereinafter Bi-County) demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, Bi-County conclusively demonstrated that the plaintiff, its employee, was not injured in the work area. Rather, the plaintiff left the properly-protected work area, i.e., the right eastbound lane of Sunrise Highway, and crossed onto the well-traveled, left eastbound lane of traffic, where he was struck by a car owned and operated by the respondents. Under these circumstances, Bi-County did not fail to provide the plaintiff a safe place to work, or fail to properly supervise and train the plaintiff (see, Olsen v State of New York, 25 NY2d 665; Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693; Richichi v Construction Mgt. Technologies, 244 AD2d 540; Camarda v Summit Homes, 233 AD2d 285). The respondents’ opposition to the motion failed to raise an issue of fact. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the third-party complaint is dismissed. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.