Boccia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boccia v. City of New York

46 A.D.3d 421, 848 N.Y.S.2d 626

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 421 (Boccia v. City of New York) 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

Boccia v. City of New York, 46 A.D.3d 421, 848 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered October 6, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment in plaintiffs favor is precluded by an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff fell off the ladder because, as plaintiff claims, it “shifted” or “slipped” due to water, mud, concrete mortar, and other debris on the ground, or because, as defendants claim, plaintiff slipped on the ladder due to “wet concrete” or “wet cement” on his boots (compare McCormack v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 233 AD2d 203 [1996], with Cruz v Turner Constr. Co., 279 AD2d 322 [2001]). That issue is raised by the accident reports prepared by plaintiffs foreman in plaintiffs presence on the basis of information provided by plaintiff stating that plaintiff slipped on the ladder due to a wet substance on his boots (see Buckley v J.A. Jones/GMO, 38 AD3d 461 [2007]; Antenucci v Three Dogs, LLC, 41 AD3d 205, 206 [2007]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, 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 October 6, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment in plaintiffs favor is precluded by an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff fell off the ladder because, as plaintiff claims, it “shifted” or “slipped” due to water, mud, concrete mortar, and other debris on the ground, or because, as defendants claim, plaintiff slipped on the ladder due to “wet concrete” or “wet cement” on his boots (compare McCormack v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 233 AD2d 203 [1996], with Cruz v Turner Constr. Co., 279 AD2d 322 [2001]). That issue is raised by the accident reports prepared by plaintiffs foreman in plaintiffs presence on the basis of information provided by plaintiff stating that plaintiff slipped on the ladder due to a wet substance on his boots (see Buckley v J.A. Jones/GMO, 38 AD3d 461 [2007]; Antenucci v Three Dogs, LLC, 41 AD3d 205, 206 [2007]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 421, 848 N.Y.S.2d 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boccia-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack