| Conrad v Kipphut & Neumann Co., Inc. |
| 2006 NY Slip Op 00829 [26 AD3d 904] |
| Decided on February 3, 2006 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth 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 3, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SCUDDER, KEHOE, GORSKI, AND GREEN, JJ.
166 CA 05-02088
[*1]NANCY CONRAD AND DAVID CONRAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, ORDER
v
KIPPHUT & NEUMANN COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, CIR ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Appeals and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered December 8, 2004. The order denied the motions of defendants Kipphut & Neumann Company, Inc. and CIR Electrical Construction Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them and denied plaintiffs' cross motion for partial summary judgment against defendant Kipphut & Neumann Company, Inc. on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.
HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (SHAWN P. MARTIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (KEVIN J. ENGLISH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ANDREWS, BERNSTEIN & MARANTO, LLP, BUFFALO (ROBERT J. MARANTO, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Entered: February 3, 2006
JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court