Stephens v Skanska USA Bldg., Inc.

Stephens v Skanska USA Bldg., Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 01183 Decided on February 16, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 16, 2012
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse, Román, JJ.
6825 118106/06

[*1]Dylan Stephens, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Skanska USA Building, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, STV Incorporated, et al., Defendants.




Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel),
for appellant.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Vincent P. Pozzuto of counsel),
for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 6, 2010, which granted defendants Skanska USA Building, Inc. and Skanska USA Construction Services, Inc.'s (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established that they did not have notice of an unsafe environment or dangerous condition at the site where plaintiff worked from February 2005 through July 2005 (see Rajkumar v Budd Contr. Corp., 77 AD3d 595, 596 [2010]). The reports they submitted by environmental assessment entities that conducted testing at the site years before and after plaintiff worked there indicate that, where toxins or contaminants were present, they fell "well below hazardous levels."

Defendants also established that plaintiff did not suffer an exacerbation or accelerated progression of his chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) as a result of his exposure to conditions at the site. Plaintiff's own medical records demonstrate that his CML was in "complete hematologic remission" as of March 2006.

Plaintiff failed to present evidence that raised an inference either that defendants had [*2]notice of an unsafe environment or dangerous condition at the site or that he was injured as a consequence of working at the site.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2012

CLERK