Conroy v. Marmon Enterprises, Inc.

253 A.D.2d 839, 678 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9823
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 28, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 839 (Conroy v. Marmon Enterprises, 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
Conroy v. Marmon Enterprises, Inc., 253 A.D.2d 839, 678 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated August 28, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict finding the plaintiff 65% at fault, the defendant third-party plaintiff Marmon Enterprises, Inc., 10% at [840]*840fault, and the third-party defendant, Garden World, Inc., 25% at fault in the happening of the accident, and upon the granting of the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff Harmon Enterprises, Inc., and the third-party defendant Garden World, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 4404 for judgment as a matter of law, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff was injured when he fell off a forklift on which he was standing as it traveled over a speed bump, which had a 6-inch gap in it for drainage purposes. The plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that the defendant third-party plaintiff, Harmon Enterprises, Inc., the owner of the premises, was negligent, because he failed to establish that the speed bump was defective or constituted a dangerous condition (see, Pilato v Diamond, 209 AD2d 393). Horeover, to the extent that the plaintiff admitted to standing on the forklift for his convenience, he assumed the risk of injury (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315; Elardo v Town of Oyster Bay, 176 AD2d 912, 914, citing Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 33; Sands v Bonnie View, 230 AD2d 902). Hangano, P. J., Sullivan, Florio and HcGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Iozzo v. Westchester County Club
53 A.D.3d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Comack v. VBK Realty Associates, Ltd.
48 A.D.3d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Shaw v. Lieb
40 A.D.3d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Sy v. Kopet
18 A.D.3d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Belloro v. Chicoma
8 A.D.3d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Westerville v. Cornell University
291 A.D.2d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 A.D.2d 839, 678 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conroy-v-marmon-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1998.