Majority
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Eastman Kodak Company dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action based upon common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200. In support of its motion, Kodak submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that it had, at most, a general power to enforce safety standards and did not have supervisory control over the method or manner of the work of plaintiff Richard Palmatier (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876 , 877; McCune v Black Riv. Constructors, 225 AD2d 1078 , 1079; Enderlin v Hebert Indus. Insulation, 224 AD2d 1020 ; Brezinski v Olympia & York Water St. Co., 218 AD2d 633 , 634-635). Nei
Present — Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
Cases cited
- Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp. 82 NY2d 876 at 877 p. 865
- Enderlin v. Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc. 224 AD2d 1020 p. 865
- Brezinski v. Olympia & York Water Street Co. 218 AD2d 633 at 634-635 p. 865
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 866
- Levy v. Gallery of Homes, Inc. 177 AD2d 967 p. 866