Acosta v. 888 7th Avenue Associates

248 A.D.2d 284, 670 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3185
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 284 (Acosta v. 888 7th Avenue Associates) 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
Acosta v. 888 7th Avenue Associates, 248 A.D.2d 284, 670 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about August 13, 1997, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s testimony that he was injured when the ladder on which he was standing collapsed established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1), and it is not enough to avoid summary judgment for defendants simply to argue that plaintiff is the sole witness to the accident with exclusive knowledge of the facts as to how the accident happened (see, Klein v City of New York, 89 NY2d 833, affg 222 AD2d 351; Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 194 AD2d 460; Rodriguez v Forest City Jay St. Assocs., 234 AD2d 68, 69-70). Concerning plaintiffs’ time to move for summary judgment, it expired on May 1, 1997, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a) (Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu, 245 AD2d 164), but the pretrial conferences held in February and April 1997, at which discussions were had as to whether defendants would concede liability, constituted good cause for permitting the motion to be served on or about May 30, 1997. We have considered defendants’ remaining argument and find it to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Riddick v. City of New York
4 A.D.3d 242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rauschenbach v. Pegasystems, Inc.
273 A.D.2d 90 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Rabadi v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
268 A.D.2d 418 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Torres v. New York City Transit Authority
267 A.D.2d 77 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Morris v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
262 A.D.2d 135 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Miranda v. Devlin
260 A.D.2d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Samuel v. General Cinema Theaters, Inc.
254 A.D.2d 85 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Rossi v. Arnot Ogden Medical Center
252 A.D.2d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D.2d 284, 670 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-888-7th-avenue-associates-nyappdiv-1998.