Devine v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.
This text of 276 A.D.2d 664 (Devine v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated November 17, 1999, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. and Prudential Securities, Inc., on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the respondents’ liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). There is an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff refused to use safety devices that were made available to him thereby rendering him a “recalcitrant worker” (see, Jastrzebski v North Shore School Dist., 223 AD2d 677, affd 88 NY2d 946; see generally, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562-563; Stolt v General Foods Corp., 81 NY2d 918). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
276 A.D.2d 664, 717 N.Y.S.2d 544, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devine-v-chase-manhattan-bank-n-a-nyappdiv-2000.