Catalfamo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catalfamo v. City of New York

205 A.D.2d 351, 614 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244

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

DecidedJune 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 351 (Catalfamo 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

Catalfamo v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 351, 614 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered February 4, 1994, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for an order of partial summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) as against defendants the City of New York and the New York City Board of Education, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[352]*352The IAS Court properly determined that material questions of fact exist with respect to whether a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) occurred and, if so, whether the violation was the proximate cause of plaintiffs fall particularly in light of plaintiffs deposition testimony that there was nothing wrong with the ladder (see, Antunes v 950 Park Ave. Corp., 149 AD2d 332). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered February 4, 1994, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for an order of partial summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) as against defendants the City of New York and the New York City Board of Education, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[352]*352The IAS Court properly determined that material questions of fact exist with respect to whether a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) occurred and, if so, whether the violation was the proximate cause of plaintiffs fall particularly in light of plaintiffs deposition testimony that there was nothing wrong with the ladder (see, Antunes v 950 Park Ave. Corp., 149 AD2d 332). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 351, 614 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catalfamo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack