Abrams v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrams v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.

39 A.D.3d 350, 832 N.Y.S.2d 435

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 17, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 350 (Abrams v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrams v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 39 A.D.3d 350, 832 N.Y.S.2d 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered October 23, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 USC § 51 et seq.), denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs moving papers fail to make a prima facie showing that he was not comparatively negligent (see McCabe v CSX Transp., Inc., 27 AD3d 1150 [2006]). Deposition testimony tends to show that plaintiff knowingly stood near a coworker, idly and at times inattentive, while the coworker was in the process of moving awkward, 10-to-12-foot-long hoses, a job that plaintiff had been instructed to assist the coworker with. Plaintiffs moving papers do not explain why he did not assist the coworker, pay attention to the work the coworker was doing, or move a safe distance away. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered October 23, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 USC § 51 et seq.), denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs moving papers fail to make a prima facie showing that he was not comparatively negligent (see McCabe v CSX Transp., Inc., 27 AD3d 1150 [2006]). Deposition testimony tends to show that plaintiff knowingly stood near a coworker, idly and at times inattentive, while the coworker was in the process of moving awkward, 10-to-12-foot-long hoses, a job that plaintiff had been instructed to assist the coworker with. Plaintiffs moving papers do not explain why he did not assist the coworker, pay attention to the work the coworker was doing, or move a safe distance away. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 350, 832 N.Y.S.2d 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-port-authority-trans-hudson-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack