Ortiz v. Uhl
Roman Ortiz v. William F. Uhl, Individually and Doing Business as Uhl, Hall & Rich
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Memorandum.
The court affirms on the authority of Bidetto v. New York City Housing Auth. (25 N Y 2d 848). No basis establishing a duty of care by the defendants herein has been shown. Neither the Power Authority nor Uhl, Hall & Rich furnished Merritt with any tools, equipment or employees, or made any determination as to the methods by which the contractor should perform the required work. As in Bidetto, if there was negligence, it was that of plaintiff’s employer in the methods chosen to perform the contract work. The accident did not occur in a commonly used portion of the premises under the control of either defendant; and, therefore, no duty of care was created under the safe place to work doctrine. Nor does section 241 of the Labor Law, which is not applicable under the present facts, or the contract between the Power Authority and defendant Uhl, operate to create a duty of care owned by either of these defendants toward the plaintiff.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtlbr, Rabin and Stevens concur in memorandum; Judge G-abrielli taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.