Alzate v. Trustees of the Masonic Hall Asylum Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alzate v. Trustees of the Masonic Hall Asylum Fund

303 A.D.2d 229, 757 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2521

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 229 (Alzate v. Trustees of the Masonic Hall Asylum Fund) 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

Alzate v. Trustees of the Masonic Hall Asylum Fund, 303 A.D.2d 229, 757 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 202 and granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment as to liability was properly granted with respect to plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim inasmuch as plaintiffs fall while preparing to wash external windows on the 19th floor of defendant’s building was occasioned, at least in substantial part, by the failure of an improperly anchored safety belt to provide plaintiff with adequate protection (see Podbielski v KMO-361 Realty Assoc., 294 AD2d 552 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 613 [2002]; Stein v Yonkers Contr., 244 AD2d 474 [1997]; DiMuro v Town of Babylon, 210 AD2d 373 [1994]).

While, as defendant points out, comparative negligence is relevant in assigning liability under Labor Law § 202 (see Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 97 NY2d 445, 452 [2002]), summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 202 claim would not have been appropriate since the evidence raises a question of fact whether, as defendant contends, error on plaintiffs part was a substantial cause of the accident. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 202 and granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment as to liability was properly granted with respect to plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim inasmuch as plaintiffs fall while preparing to wash external windows on the 19th floor of defendant’s building was occasioned, at least in substantial part, by the failure of an improperly anchored safety belt to provide plaintiff with adequate protection (see Podbielski v KMO-361 Realty Assoc., 294 AD2d 552 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 613 [2002]; Stein v Yonkers Contr., 244 AD2d 474 [1997]; DiMuro v Town of Babylon, 210 AD2d 373 [1994]).

While, as defendant points out, comparative negligence is relevant in assigning liability under Labor Law § 202 (see Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 97 NY2d 445, 452 [2002]), summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 202 claim would not have been appropriate since the evidence raises a question of fact whether, as defendant contends, error on plaintiffs part was a substantial cause of the accident. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 229, 757 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alzate-v-trustees-of-the-masonic-hall-asylum-fund-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack