Betteridge v. Tops Markets, Inc.

292 A.D.2d 763, 739 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2659

This text of 292 A.D.2d 763 (Betteridge v. Tops Markets, Inc.) 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
Betteridge v. Tops Markets, Inc., 292 A.D.2d 763, 739 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Sedita, Jr., J.), entered February 12, 2001, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted and the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while replacing a surveillance camera unit mounted at the top of a 30- to 40-foot pole in a parking lot owned by defendant. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he performed his work from a boom lift supplied by defendant. After disconnecting the wires and removing the four bolts that secured the camera unit to the pole, plaintiff bent down to place the bolts on the floor of [764]*764the bucket. A gust of wind knocked the lift into the pole, causing the camera unit to fall and strike plaintiff in the head. The record establishes that the camera unit was a mere one foot above plaintiffs head, a de minimis elevation differential (see, Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 269-270). We therefore reverse the order, deny plaintiffs motion, grant defendant’s cross motion and dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Scudder, Gorski and Law-ton, JJ.

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

Related

Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates
750 N.E.2d 1085 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 A.D.2d 763, 739 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betteridge-v-tops-markets-inc-nyappdiv-2002.