Crystal v. Japan Airlines Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crystal v. Japan Airlines Management Corp.

255 A.D.2d 161, 679 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11889

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 161 (Crystal v. Japan Airlines Management Corp.) 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

Crystal v. Japan Airlines Management Corp., 255 A.D.2d 161, 679 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered [162]*162July 31, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although it is unclear how or when the piece of metal that caused plaintiffs fall appeared on the stairwell in his work area, the motion court properly concluded that summary dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, to the extent that it alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) and 23-2.1 (b), was not warranted. As the Court of Appeals has recently stated in Rizzuto v Wenger Contr. Co. (91 NY2d 343, 350), “once it has been alleged that a concrete specification of the Code has been violated, it is for the jury to determine whether the negligence of some party to, or participant in, the construction project caused plaintiffs injury”. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered [162]*162July 31, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although it is unclear how or when the piece of metal that caused plaintiffs fall appeared on the stairwell in his work area, the motion court properly concluded that summary dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, to the extent that it alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) and 23-2.1 (b), was not warranted. As the Court of Appeals has recently stated in Rizzuto v Wenger Contr. Co. (91 NY2d 343, 350), “once it has been alleged that a concrete specification of the Code has been violated, it is for the jury to determine whether the negligence of some party to, or participant in, the construction project caused plaintiffs injury”. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 161, 679 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crystal-v-japan-airlines-management-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack