Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc.

301 A.D.2d 366, 754 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 366 (Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, 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

Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc., 301 A.D.2d 366, 754 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Sal-man, J.), entered on or about August 19, 2002, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict in defendant’s favor and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered March 20, 2002, denying plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order entered March 20, 2002, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The trial evidence in this action to recover for construction [367]*367site injuries pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) demonstrated that plaintiff, the owner of the subcontracting company-retained to perform work on residential premises by defendant contractor, was working on his own when the extending ladder he owned and which he selected and erected for the contracted-for work suddenly retracted causing him to fall. Plaintiff testified that he did not know what caused the ladder to retract, and that the ladder had previously been steady and free from defect. Under these circumstances, a factual issue was posed as to whether plaintiff’s injury was caused by some inadequacy of the ladder or was solely attributable to the manner in which plaintiff used the ladder (see Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960; Weber v 1111 Park Ave. Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 376). The jury was entitled to resolve this issue as it did and we perceive no ground upon which its verdict would be susceptible to disturbance (see Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, lv denied 70 NY2d 602).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Sal-man, J.), entered on or about August 19, 2002, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict in defendant’s favor and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered March 20, 2002, denying plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order entered March 20, 2002, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The trial evidence in this action to recover for construction [367]*367site injuries pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) demonstrated that plaintiff, the owner of the subcontracting company-retained to perform work on residential premises by defendant contractor, was working on his own when the extending ladder he owned and which he selected and erected for the contracted-for work suddenly retracted causing him to fall. Plaintiff testified that he did not know what caused the ladder to retract, and that the ladder had previously been steady and free from defect. Under these circumstances, a factual issue was posed as to whether plaintiff’s injury was caused by some inadequacy of the ladder or was solely attributable to the manner in which plaintiff used the ladder (see Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960; Weber v 1111 Park Ave. Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 376). The jury was entitled to resolve this issue as it did and we perceive no ground upon which its verdict would be susceptible to disturbance (see Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, lv denied 70 NY2d 602).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 366, 754 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-neighborhood-housing-services-of-new-york-city-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack