Coates v. Corp. of the PresidIng Bishop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coates v. Corp. of the PresidIng Bishop

56 A.D.2d 599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 109

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 599 (Coates v. Corp. of the PresidIng Bishop) 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

Coates v. Corp. of the PresidIng Bishop, 56 A.D.2d 599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated May 31, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied, as untimely, his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

Under the circumstances presented in this case, it was error for the Supreme Court to grant summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Questions of fact exist as to whether the construction of the wall from which the plaintiff fell was completed at the time the plaintiff conducted his inspection (see Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878 [2003]) and, if so, whether the plaintiff performed that inspection in an unnecessarily risky manner which constituted the sole proximate cause of his accident (see e.g. Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 NY3d 550 [2006]). However, the denial, as untimely, of the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment was proper (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Belen, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated May 31, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied, as untimely, his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

Under the circumstances presented in this case, it was error for the Supreme Court to grant summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Questions of fact exist as to whether the construction of the wall from which the plaintiff fell was completed at the time the plaintiff conducted his inspection (see Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878 [2003]) and, if so, whether the plaintiff performed that inspection in an unnecessarily risky manner which constituted the sole proximate cause of his accident (see e.g. Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 NY3d 550 [2006]). However, the denial, as untimely, of the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment was proper (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coates-v-corp-of-the-presiding-bishop-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack