BRUCE CAREY res-ap, v. FIVE BROTHERS, INC. APPELLANTS-res, ET AL.

BRUCE CAREY res-ap, v. FIVE BROTHERS, INC. APPELLANTS-res, ET AL., DEFENDANT (AND THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS). (INDEX NO. 31980/07)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Five Brothers, Inc., J. Petrocelli Contracting, Inc., and Darr Contracting Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated November 21, 2011, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the defendants HK New Plan Marwood Sunshine Cheyenne, LLC, New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, Stop & Shop Food Stores, Inc., and Stop & Shop, Inc., separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

BRUCE CAREY res-ap, v. FIVE BROTHERS, INC. APPELLANTS-res, ET AL., DEFENDANT (AND THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS). (INDEX NO. 31980/07)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Five Brothers, Inc., J. Petrocelli Contracting, Inc., and Darr Contracting Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated November 21, 2011, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the defendants HK New Plan Marwood Sunshine Cheyenne, LLC, New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, Stop & Shop Food Stores, Inc., and Stop & Shop, Inc., separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof denying those branches of the cross motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6), and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the cross motions; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

BRUCE CAREY res-ap, v. FIVE BROTHERS, INC. APPELLANTS-res, ET AL.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal