DeCoursey v. Seven Hanover Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeCoursey v. Seven Hanover Associates, LLC

39 A.D.3d 342, 833 N.Y.S.2d 482

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

DecidedApril 17, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 342 (DeCoursey v. Seven Hanover Associates, LLC) 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

DeCoursey v. Seven Hanover Associates, LLC, 39 A.D.3d 342, 833 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered November 24, 2006, which, upon reargument, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants emphasize evidence indicating that the alleged accident may have been caused in part by plaintiffs act of leaning out on the ladder. However, there was unrefuted evidence that although the ladder was designed to lock into a window mullion, the window at which the ladder was to be placed had no mullion, and that plaintiff pointed out this incompatibility to his supervisor but was repeatedly instructed, along with his coworker, to use the ladder. It was thus established that a lack of adequate protection was the cause of the accident, at least [343]*343“in part” (see Montalvo v J. Petrocelli Constr., Inc., 8 AD3d 173, 175 [2004]), and, concomitantly, that plaintiffs conduct was not the sole cause of the accident (see Ball v Cascade Tissue Group-N.Y., Inc., 36 AD3d 1187 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered November 24, 2006, which, upon reargument, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants emphasize evidence indicating that the alleged accident may have been caused in part by plaintiffs act of leaning out on the ladder. However, there was unrefuted evidence that although the ladder was designed to lock into a window mullion, the window at which the ladder was to be placed had no mullion, and that plaintiff pointed out this incompatibility to his supervisor but was repeatedly instructed, along with his coworker, to use the ladder. It was thus established that a lack of adequate protection was the cause of the accident, at least [343]*343“in part” (see Montalvo v J. Petrocelli Constr., Inc., 8 AD3d 173, 175 [2004]), and, concomitantly, that plaintiffs conduct was not the sole cause of the accident (see Ball v Cascade Tissue Group-N.Y., Inc., 36 AD3d 1187 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 342, 833 N.Y.S.2d 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decoursey-v-seven-hanover-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack