Chan v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

284 A.D.2d 290, 726 N.Y.S.2d 127, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5646
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 4, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 290 (Chan v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 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
Chan v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 290, 726 N.Y.S.2d 127, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 7, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) against the defendant Alexander’s of Rego Park, Inc.

Ordered that order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

While installing electrical conduit wiring into the ceiling of a mall owned by the defendant Alexander’s of Rego Park, Inc. (hereinafter Alexander’s), Allan Chan (hereinafter the plaintiff) fell from an unsecured A-frame ladder and sustained an injury. At his examination before trial, the plaintiff testified that the ladder tilted, causing him to fall. However, his supervisor testified that on the following day the plaintiff told him during a telephone conversation that he slipped off of the ladder. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), against, among others, Alexander’s.

When a plaintiff is injured from a fall from a ladder that is not shown to be defective, the issue of whether the ladder provided proper protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) is a question of fact for the jury (see, Benefield v Halmar Corp., 264 AD2d 794). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the [291]*291plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Alexander’s.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Gold-stein, J. P., McGinity, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nunez v. City of New York
100 A.D.3d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Ellerbe v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
91 A.D.3d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
50 A.D.3d 227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Buckley v. J.A. Jones/GMO
38 A.D.3d 461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Seepersaud v. City of New York
38 A.D.3d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Taglioni v. Harbor Cove Associates
308 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Tersigni v. City of New York
300 A.D.2d 389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 290, 726 N.Y.S.2d 127, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chan-v-bed-bath-beyond-inc-nyappdiv-2001.