Bartoo v. Buell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bartoo v. Buell

198 A.D.2d 819, 605 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11429

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 819 (Bartoo v. Buell) 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

Bartoo v. Buell, 198 A.D.2d 819, 605 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have denied the motion of plaintiffs Skiver for summary judgment against defendant homeowner on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Under the facts of this case, defendant was entitled to the statutory exemption accorded to owners of one- and two-family dwellings under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) (see, Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644, 649; Enderby v Keppler, 184 AD2d 1058; Devodier v Haas, 173 AD2d 437).

All concur except Lawton and Fallon, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm in the same dissenting Memorandum as in Bartoo v Buell (198 AD2d 819 [decided herewith]). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Allegany County, Francis, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have denied the motion of plaintiffs Skiver for summary judgment against defendant homeowner on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Under the facts of this case, defendant was entitled to the statutory exemption accorded to owners of one- and two-family dwellings under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) (see, Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644, 649; Enderby v Keppler, 184 AD2d 1058; Devodier v Haas, 173 AD2d 437).

All concur except Lawton and Fallon, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm in the same dissenting Memorandum as in Bartoo v Buell (198 AD2d 819 [decided herewith]). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Allegany County, Francis, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 819, 605 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartoo-v-buell-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack