Avila v. Ashton Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Avila v. Ashton Management Co.

24 A.D.3d 273, 807 N.Y.S.2d 24

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 273 (Avila v. Ashton Management Co.) 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

Avila v. Ashton Management Co., 24 A.D.3d 273, 807 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about March 17, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the motion of defendant Yates Restoration Corp. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was properly denied since the evidence showing that the scaffold utilized by plaintiff tipped when plaintiff and his coworker, “very near” to each other, exchanged places causing both of them to fall to the ground, did not permit the court to conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs act of unhooking his safety belt was the sole proximate cause of his harm (see Fajardo v Trans World Equities Co., 286 AD2d 271 [2001]).

Inasmuch as plaintiff alleged in the bill of particulars that Yates violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.8 and there was no evidence presented as to whether Yates provided tie-ins in accordance with the Code’s requirement, the court properly denied Yates’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about March 17, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the motion of defendant Yates Restoration Corp. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was properly denied since the evidence showing that the scaffold utilized by plaintiff tipped when plaintiff and his coworker, “very near” to each other, exchanged places causing both of them to fall to the ground, did not permit the court to conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs act of unhooking his safety belt was the sole proximate cause of his harm (see Fajardo v Trans World Equities Co., 286 AD2d 271 [2001]).

Inasmuch as plaintiff alleged in the bill of particulars that Yates violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.8 and there was no evidence presented as to whether Yates provided tie-ins in accordance with the Code’s requirement, the court properly denied Yates’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 273, 807 N.Y.S.2d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avila-v-ashton-management-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack