Antonik v. New York City Housing Authority

235 A.D.2d 248, 652 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 239
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 14, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 248 (Antonik v. New York City Housing Authority) 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
Antonik v. New York City Housing Authority, 235 A.D.2d 248, 652 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered October 25, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted the cross motions of defendant Republic Elevator Corp., New York City Housing Authority and Doorman Co., Inc. dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ decedent, an experienced worker, fell down an elevator shaft while using the active elevator to transport construction materials. Labor Law § 241-a is inapplicable under these circumstances. With respect to plaintiffs’ cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), even accepting the plaintiff’s theory of the case, the decedent’s attempt to exit the stalled elevator was an intervening act constituting a superseding cause of the accident. The decedent was an experienced worker, who was not in an emergency situation, and who would not have been injured had he waited for an engineer to restart the elevator, as was the practice in prior instances of elevators stalling at the project (see, Jackson v Greene, 201 NY 76, 79; Mack v Altmans Stage Light. Co., 98 AD2d 468). We note that the only eyewitness, Jozef Klin, died before he could be examined under oath. As Klin was under no business duty to speak to the police, the statements contained in police reports attributed to Klin are not admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see, Balboa Ins. Co. v Alston, 141 AD2d 364). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Meade v. Ota Hotel Owner LP
76 A.D.2d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Owens v. Stevenson Commons Associates, L.P.
64 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pelzer v. Transel Elevator & Electric Inc.
41 A.D.3d 379 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Jennings v. 1704 Realty, L.L.C.
39 A.D.3d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership
306 A.D.2d 39 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Stankowski v. Kim
286 A.D.2d 282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Harrington v. State
277 A.D.2d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Jamison v. GSL Enterprises, Inc.
274 A.D.2d 356 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Marques v. Suffolk County Sewer Agency
272 A.D.2d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Egan v. A.J. Construction Corp.
262 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Humbach v. Goldstein
255 A.D.2d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
George v. State
251 A.D.2d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Tsangalidis v. O.K.G. Professional Consultants
243 A.D.2d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 A.D.2d 248, 652 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonik-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.