Brown v. BKV Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. BKV Realty Co.

286 A.D.2d 984, 730 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8891

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 984 (Brown v. BKV Realty Co.) 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

Brown v. BKV Realty Co., 286 A.D.2d 984, 730 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendants contend that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) because there is a triable issue of fact concerning the proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. We disagree. Plaintiff submitted proof in admissible form establishing that his fall from a scaffold was the proximate cause of his injuries (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; see generally, Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960, rearg denied 92 NY2d 875). Although the affidavit of defendants’ examining physician raises an issue of fact whether plaintiffs “present condition” is related to the accident, it fails to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained any causally related injury (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra, at 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendants contend that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) because there is a triable issue of fact concerning the proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. We disagree. Plaintiff submitted proof in admissible form establishing that his fall from a scaffold was the proximate cause of his injuries (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; see generally, Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958, 960, rearg denied 92 NY2d 875). Although the affidavit of defendants’ examining physician raises an issue of fact whether plaintiffs “present condition” is related to the accident, it fails to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained any causally related injury (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra, at 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 984, 730 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-bkv-realty-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack