Alesius v. Good Samaritan Hospital Medical & Dialysis Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alesius v. Good Samaritan Hospital Medical & Dialysis Center

6 A.D.3d 470, 774 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4126

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

DecidedApril 12, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 470 (Alesius v. Good Samaritan Hospital Medical & Dialysis Center) 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

Alesius v. Good Samaritan Hospital Medical & Dialysis Center, 6 A.D.3d 470, 774 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), entered February 20, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the injured plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff) was provided with proper protection, and if proper protection was not supplied, whether this was a contributing cause of his fall or was the plaintiffs conduct the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 287 [2003]; Woods v Gonzales, 295 AD2d 602, 603 [2002]; Williams v Dover Home Improvement, 276 AD2d 626, 627 [2000]; Bahrman v Holtsville Fire Dist., 270 AD2d 438, 439 [2000]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), entered February 20, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the injured plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff) was provided with proper protection, and if proper protection was not supplied, whether this was a contributing cause of his fall or was the plaintiffs conduct the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 287 [2003]; Woods v Gonzales, 295 AD2d 602, 603 [2002]; Williams v Dover Home Improvement, 276 AD2d 626, 627 [2000]; Bahrman v Holtsville Fire Dist., 270 AD2d 438, 439 [2000]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 470, 774 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alesius-v-good-samaritan-hospital-medical-dialysis-center-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack