Cronin v. Interstate Erector Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cronin v. Interstate Erector Co.

268 A.D.2d 553, 702 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 939

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 553 (Cronin v. Interstate Erector 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

Cronin v. Interstate Erector Co., 268 A.D.2d 553, 702 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated December 31, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6).

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092; Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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 defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated December 31, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6).

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092; Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 553, 702 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cronin-v-interstate-erector-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack