Bonilla v. Petrillo Realty Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonilla v. Petrillo Realty Development Corp.

237 A.D.2d 115, 655 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2125

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 115 (Bonilla v. Petrillo Realty Development Corp.) 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

Bonilla v. Petrillo Realty Development Corp., 237 A.D.2d 115, 655 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered September 23, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action alleging violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and common-law negligence arising from plaintiff’s alleged backward fall from a ladder, the court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, taken in light of other submissions on the motion, raises credibility questions precluding summary judgment. Nor was it conclusively established that lack of safety devices constituted a failure to provide "proper protection” in violation of section 240 (1) or that said violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (Saaverda v East Fordham Rd. Real Estate Corp., 233 AD2d 125). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered September 23, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action alleging violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and common-law negligence arising from plaintiff’s alleged backward fall from a ladder, the court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, taken in light of other submissions on the motion, raises credibility questions precluding summary judgment. Nor was it conclusively established that lack of safety devices constituted a failure to provide "proper protection” in violation of section 240 (1) or that said violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (Saaverda v East Fordham Rd. Real Estate Corp., 233 AD2d 125). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 115, 655 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonilla-v-petrillo-realty-development-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack