Camacho v. TNT USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camacho v. TNT USA, Inc.

73 A.D.3d 827, 899 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedMay 11, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 827 (Camacho v. TNT USA, 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

Camacho v. TNT USA, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 827, 899 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated April 22, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, who was responsible for loading freight onto airplanes at JFK International Airport, allegedly sustained an injury to his left knee when he attempted to step onto a manual roller mechanism used to move freight, and his leg dropped into a space between two adjacent rollers. At the time, he was attempting to access controls which were used to move freight along on an automatic conveyor. After joinder of issue, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the [828]*828complaint. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion. We affirm.

The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the manual roller system, which had sizeable spaces between adjacent rollers, was not inherently dangerous (see Cooper, v American Carpet & Restoration Servs., Inc., 69 AD3d 552 [2010]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, this Court need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Tchjevskaia v Chase, 15 AD3d 389 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated April 22, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, who was responsible for loading freight onto airplanes at JFK International Airport, allegedly sustained an injury to his left knee when he attempted to step onto a manual roller mechanism used to move freight, and his leg dropped into a space between two adjacent rollers. At the time, he was attempting to access controls which were used to move freight along on an automatic conveyor. After joinder of issue, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the [828]*828complaint. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion. We affirm.

The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the manual roller system, which had sizeable spaces between adjacent rollers, was not inherently dangerous (see Cooper, v American Carpet & Restoration Servs., Inc., 69 AD3d 552 [2010]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, this Court need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Tchjevskaia v Chase, 15 AD3d 389 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 827, 899 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-tnt-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack