Batista v. Manhattanville College

New York Court of Appeals

Batista v. Manhattanville College

68 N.E.3d 83, 28 N.Y.3d 1093

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 20, 2016·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, modified, without costs, by granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Manhattanville College and TJR, Inc. and, as so modified, affirmed, and certified question answered in the negative. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident (see Barreto v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 25 NY3d 426, 433-434 [2015]).

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, modified, without costs, by granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Manhattanville College and TJR, Inc. and, as so modified, affirmed, and certified question answered in the negative. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident (see Barreto v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 25 NY3d 426, 433-434 [2015]).

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia.

Batista v. Manhattanville College, 68 N.E.3d 83, 28 N.Y.3d 1093 (N.Y. 2016).

Pincite

68 N.E.3d 83 (Batista v. Manhattanville College) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related