Ciardiello v. Benenson Capital Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciardiello v. Benenson Capital Co.

273 A.D.2d 147, 710 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7144

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

DecidedJune 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 147 (Ciardiello v. Benenson Capital 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

Ciardiello v. Benenson Capital Co., 273 A.D.2d 147, 710 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1999, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim in light of proof demonstrating that, in the course of his employment as a mason tender, plaintiff fell from a scaffold six or seven feet to the ground when one of the scaffold’s planks gave way (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 559; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501). The speculation of appellant, third-party defendant SAF La Sala Corp., that the accident might not have happened in the manner described by plaintiff or might not have happened at all, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur— Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1999, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim in light of proof demonstrating that, in the course of his employment as a mason tender, plaintiff fell from a scaffold six or seven feet to the ground when one of the scaffold’s planks gave way (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 559; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501). The speculation of appellant, third-party defendant SAF La Sala Corp., that the accident might not have happened in the manner described by plaintiff or might not have happened at all, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur— Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 147, 710 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciardiello-v-benenson-capital-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack